Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Scott R. Brown]

hello. you dont care if its real or not because it made you feel good. this is not surprising because the general american attitude is your feelings are the most important things in the world.

Uh......that's not just Americans.....that is every single person on the planet, including yourself!

Even those who claim to be caring for the feelings of others are acting according to their own self-centered reasons.

Maybe try to exercise a little self control on your bigotry!

You are getting a bit out of control!

[tattooedmonk]

http://www.sportsbooks.ltd.uk/shop/book_details/119_sugong

[tattooedmonk]

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. You do not know me or many of the other SD practicioners I have met, I suspect. SD is not my only art, nor is it my first art. I have practiced and continue to practice other, more traditional and established arts, with unquestioned heritage. SD was on campus where I attended college and I enjoyed it. There were no other options and I enjoyed the people, so I continued after I left college. I eventually moved on to other arts, but did not belittle SD because it had a cloudy heritage. Just because something or someone does not conform to YOUR expectation, does not make them or it a bad thing. Just not in line with what you expect. In my world, that is called being closed or narrow minded. Judgemental tendancies cannot lead a person to enlightenment, regardless of how loud they shout.I feel the same way you do about my experience in SD. Still practice everyday. :eek::)

[OldandUsed]

@TM...that book would prove interesting reading, I am sure!

[bodhi warrior]

http://www.sportsbooks.ltd.uk/shop/book_details/119_sugong

Comes out in April. I'll be ordering a copy.

[bawang]

Uh......that's not just Americans.....that is every single person on the planet, including yourself!


no. i feel nothing. nothing at all.


Even those who claim to be caring for the feelings of others are acting according to their own self-centered reasons.



i have no self reason to train martial arts. i want to preserve traditional chinse culture and spirit.

[David Jamieson]

I'm going to change my mind.

If you are looking in the light, what is shining on you?

That is all.

P.S Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. None of us can eat the whole loaf anyway. ;)

[kwaichang]

Glad to see some of you are still at it, I hope all are well and training hard Traditional or not. Well it seems Bawang does not feel we are honoring the Shaolin name. What else is new. So I pose a question, is it better to train "traditional" and belittle others for what they do or to Train with the right spirit what ever you do and praise and accept others as Martial Artists with qualities and abilities ? Which is more traditional? also what of wing chun isnt its History questionable yet it is considered Traditional although very new in a MA sense. KC :)

[bodhi warrior]

Ok...I know this is probably reaching a bit, but here it goes. GM sin told a story about how he and a collegue came upon a guy beating everybody in town in public matches. Neither sin nor his friend could beat him. This opponent was a master of internal kung fu and fat. After getting beaten sin studied bagua from the internal master. What are the odds this master was legendary bagua master Wang shu Jin?

[David Jamieson]

Ok...I know this is probably reaching a bit, but here it goes. GM sin told a story about how he and a collegue came upon a guy beating everybody in town in public matches. Neither sin nor his friend could beat him. This opponent was a master of internal kung fu and fat. After getting beaten sin studied bagua from the internal master. What are the odds this master was legendary bagua master Wang shu Jin?

I don't know, what do his current disciples say? was sin one of their classmates?

[bodhi warrior]

I don't know, what do his current disciples say? was sin one of their classmates?

I've emailed some people but haven't got a response yet. Sin The would have been a teenager at the time. And from what I heard didn't stay with the internal long because Ie got mad.

[OldandUsed]

This may be stirring things up a bit, but has anyone heard of a recent lawsuit between SKT and Jacob Rydberg? It was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California?

[Old Noob]

This may be stirring things up a bit, but has anyone heard of a recent lawsuit between SKT and Jacob Rydberg? It was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California?

There was a poster on Bullshido who claimed to be the attorney who was going to do GMT's deposition in that case. He said he'd post a video or the transcript and never did. The filings in the case, which are public, are available from several online sources but you have to pay for them.

[OldandUsed]

Went over there and looked at the post, and the attached documents. I have to admit that it was enlightening and I was surprised at most of the information.

[Yao Sing]

Not even a link?

You really gonna make us go to Crapshido for the info?

[bodhi warrior]

Go to bullshido. They got a huge banner graphic on the investigation of shaolin do. Read sin the's deposition. He admits it under oath he made up the majority of what he teaches. And then claims he didn't tell people he made up the forms because he didn't want to be boastful! I'm now wondering if there could be a class action lawsuit against him for theft by deception?

[bodhi warrior]

http://www.bullshido.org/Sin_The

this is a summary of the deposition. click on the full court document. it's 46 pages long. but very interesting reading.

[tattooedmonk]

This may be stirring things up a bit, but has anyone heard of a recent lawsuit between SKT and Jacob Rydberg? It was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California?;):rolleyes::eek::cool:I know, right?

[Judge Pen]

I just read the entire deposition and the order on the Barry Van Over case here in Knoxville. Very enlightening. High points; most all of the material from white through first brown was invented by Sin The after he came to America. He admitted that he has invented 37 or 40 more forms since then. No mention as to what forms these are. He maintains that most of the material he teaches is traditional kung fu taught to him by Master Ie. He directly answers some other questions such as denying that Master Ie was his grandfather and that he only remembers 300 some forms, but at one time knew 900.

[Yao Sing]

I still say people put way too much into choreography. But then they should not have been passed off as something they're not.

Anyone (with sufficient training) can put together exercises, line drills, 2-man drills, forms, etc. Bottom line would be, are the moves themselves legit and/or traditional?

[Judge Pen]

I still say people put way too much into choreography. But then they should not have been passed off as something they're not.

Anyone (with sufficient training) can put together exercises, line drills, 2-man drills, forms, etc. Bottom line would be, are the moves themselves legit and/or traditional?

I agree. Because of the legalities, Sin The had to be careful how he said it. He was adamant that his teacher taught him traditional shaolin-kung fu, but since you can't copywrite traditional movement, he had to say the forms he created were not traditional. This was the same argument he made years ago in Tennessee. In fact he had Master Garry Mullins demonstrate the difference between the traditional and non-traditional moves.

[bodhi warrior]

I agree. Because of the legalities, Sin The had to be careful how he said it. He was adamant that his teacher taught him traditional shaolin-kung fu, but since you can't copywrite traditional movement, he had to say the forms he created were not traditional. This was the same argument he made years ago in Tennessee. In fact he had Master Garry Mullins demonstrate the difference between the traditional and non-traditional moves.

I was thinking today. Was he lying when he said he created the forms just so he could win the copy write case. If he remembered 300 forms then why create more?
How did Mullins demonstrate the difference between traditional and non-traditional?
And if Sin The made up most of the material we know, then what did he learn from Ie?

[Judge Pen]

I was thinking today. Was he lying when he said he created the forms just so he could win the copy write case. If he remembered 300 forms then why create more?
How did Mullins demonstrate the difference between traditional and non-traditional?
And if Sin The made up most of the material we know, then what did he learn from Ie?

He said in his deposition that the traditional forms were too long and complicated to teach people so he created these forms to make it more simple for beginers. This begs the question why didn't he just teach the drills and excercises that go along and break things down without creating something from whole cloth?

Apparently Mullins did a demo before the judge.

[Judge Pen]

His certificate has what he learned from Ie. We can assume that. As to what else is there, I don't know. If Sin was telling the truth, then all of our lower belt material is fabricated. If he was lying to win a case, then can we trust anything? It's one thing to puff for advertising, its another to lie under oath.

[Orion Paximus]

His certificate has what he learned from Ie. We can assume that. As to what else is there, I don't know. If Sin was telling the truth, then all of our lower belt material is fabricated. If he was lying to win a case, then can we trust anything? It's one thing to puff for advertising, its another to lie under oath.

people get used to a certain lifestyle. If he suddenly said "well yeah it's all ancient and I guess i don't really own any of it" think of how much money he'd lose. On the other hand I doubt he's lying about fabricating the stuff, but I would imagine it's not just lower belt stuff. I read the whole thing today and He seemed pretty unsure of what he wanted to claim as real/fake and what he didn't want to claim. He knew if he said "yeah only white belt - black was made up" then the teacher in the lawsuit would just say "fine i'll teach all the other stuff".

[bodhi warrior]

I agree. As for Mullins, I meant which techniques did he demo that were traditional? Which did he demo that were not?

[Judge Pen]

I agree. As for Mullins, I meant which techniques did he demo that were traditional? Which did he demo that were not?

Don't know. The Order didn't go into that much detail. Since I'm not training anymore I'm not in a position to ask them about all this.

As for what other material is fabricated I would assume that any material that is only taught in SD is a prime suspect.

[Judge Pen]

people get used to a certain lifestyle. If he suddenly said "well yeah it's all ancient and I guess i don't really own any of it" think of how much money he'd lose. On the other hand I doubt he's lying about fabricating the stuff, but I would imagine it's not just lower belt stuff. I read the whole thing today and He seemed pretty unsure of what he wanted to claim as real/fake and what he didn't want to claim. He knew if he said "yeah only white belt - black was made up" then the teacher in the lawsuit would just say "fine i'll teach all the other stuff".

what's interesting is that the lower belt material (which we now know GM The created) has always been considerd lesser material. I don't know how many times I heard teachers say to newly minted black sashes "now you can start learning the good stuff"

[Judge Pen]

people get used to a certain lifestyle. If he suddenly said "well yeah it's all ancient and I guess i don't really own any of it" think of how much money he'd lose. On the other hand I doubt he's lying about fabricating the stuff, but I would imagine it's not just lower belt stuff. I read the whole thing today and He seemed pretty unsure of what he wanted to claim as real/fake and what he didn't want to claim. He knew if he said "yeah only white belt - black was made up" then the teacher in the lawsuit would just say "fine i'll teach all the other stuff".

another thought. Most students quit before they get to black. (usually in the brown sash ranks) The created material is broken down very nicely for novice students. Made up or not it does an excellent job teaching fundamentals to new students. Its easier to learn and creates a nice incentive to encourage students to build upon a foundation. It also means that a teacher makes most of his money from teaching this created material. You can teach other stuff sure (Barry Van Over is making bank still and he is not teaching this material) but it has to be replaced with something.

[bodhi warrior]

aterial that he come up also.
Q Well, did you have an agreement with him that he would not teach your copyrighted material and you would not teach his material?
A Let me explain this. My material I cleared some and he had cleared some, too. But they are common bound material that is Shaolin
Kung Fu. And so it is understood I teach my material and then Shaolin Kung Fu as well. As a matter of fact my material is around 50 something to 60 material, but Shaolin Kung Fu I taught over a hundred. So likewise, you know.
MR. OLSON: Okay.

This part confuses me. Hiang still teaches all the material up to black that sin teaches.

[kwaichang]

Quite a shock still sorting it out, Guess I owe a lot of apologies. KC:confused:

[kwaichang]

Cant open the links on Bullshido to read the pages any one want to post it on here? KC:)

[bodhi warrior]

Quite a shock still sorting it out, Guess I owe a lot of apologies. KC:confused:

You don't need to apologize. I wanted to believe it was all legit. I really wanted to be wrong. The main thing to me is Sin lied to us. I actually liked the made up material, lol. If he had said this is a style I created based on my experience in Indonesia. I probably would still have trained there. But it wouldn't be the cash cow it is now. Look at how many people have poured thousands of dollars into this thinking they were learning authentic shaolin. We were scammed. Plain and simple.

[bodhi warrior]

Cant open the links on Bullshido to read the pages any one want to post it on here? KC:)

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=13061&d=1330986799

[Judge Pen]

aterial that he come up also.
Q Well, did you have an agreement with him that he would not teach your copyrighted material and you would not teach his material?
A Let me explain this. My material I cleared some and he had cleared some, too. But they are common bound material that is Shaolin
Kung Fu. And so it is understood I teach my material and then Shaolin Kung Fu as well. As a matter of fact my material is around 50 something to 60 material, but Shaolin Kung Fu I taught over a hundred. So likewise, you know.
MR. OLSON: Okay.

This part confuses me. Hiang still teaches all the material up to black that sin teaches.

I didn't
t understand that part either. And tai pang was supposed to be Hiangs specialty. I really need to see the exhibits which include the claimed copywritten material to see what is included.

It seems like he is saying that 50 to 60 forms that he teaches are made up and he teaches that plus the Shannon material he learned. He doesn't teach Hiangs material. We know there are forms that Using has that are not supposed to be taught.

[Judge Pen]

I didn't
t understand that part either. And tai pang was supposed to be Hiangs specialty. I really need to see the exhibits which include the claimed copywritten material to see what is included.

It seems like he is saying that 50 to 60 forms that he teaches are made up and he teaches that plus the Shannon material he learned. He doesn't teach Hiangs material. We know there are forms that Using has that are not supposed to be taught.

"Shannon" = shaolin. . Stupid auto correct.

I am curious to hear other sders weigh in on this. What are your opinions? Does this change the value you put in your training?

[shen ku]

My teacher began training in 1971, i had been told that Sin started teaching other things, longer forms, and then re-did things and came out with all of the short forms and such. To me i didn't start or do not continue to train because it its "shaolin". I know of many other "programs" out there that have made up everything they teach, from an educated back ground, so i don't have much of and issue with that. I do how ever wish that it had all been a little more out in the open. I would have know problem the idea of learning a foundation art, for this purpose "shaolin do", and then moveing into more traditional arts...?? but i do not value my lower material any less after reading all of this. I have learned alot from that material, and i do feel that it all came from a point of knowledge with a good intent, even if it has been poorly handled over the many hears

[kwaichang]

I too gained much from the training but Truth has more value than training to me, I wanted the "Real" Shaolin" not something made as a space filler. No matter how good, now at my age and after 21 years in the art the Journey continues for the Real Deal ! If there is one. So we will see what happens from here. What is real and from Master Ie I would like to do but not interested in the other so much at this point. KC:o

[shen ku]

turth is important. but to be honest i would have to say i may have learned more from the high number of times i have drilled the lower material then any other that i have learned, i have been doing this art for over 27 years, i have looked out side of it many times and have never seen anything that interested me more than it...?? some i know would say i am a fool, i was never looking for "shaolin".. lol when i started i wouldn't have had any idea what the word was let alone what the art of it was. From what i have seen in my time has made me believe that what ever shaolin was at one time it this world, it is no more.. not even the modern day monk make me believe that they have what once was shaolin. BUT i do believe that there are many parts of it that have been spread over many arts... including shaolin do... so i guess hand me another class of the coolaid because my journey is about my self and my path and not some long ago art that is legend and supposed to make me .........? oh wait what is it that training in only the trues of the true that we all go nuts over will make us??...

On a side note i know of a teacher that has always said sin was fake but i resently learned that he is still teaching his students a lot of SD lower rank material, and he is a high ranking member of another style...??

[Judge Pen]

turth is important. but to be honest i would have to say i may have learned more from the high number of times i have drilled the lower material then any other that i have learned, i have been doing this art for over 27 years, i have looked out side of it many times and have never seen anything that interested me more than it...?? some i know would say i am a fool, i was never looking for "shaolin".. lol when i started i wouldn't have had any idea what the word was let alone what the art of it was. From what i have seen in my time has made me believe that what ever shaolin was at one time it this world, it is no more.. not even the modern day monk make me believe that they have what once was shaolin. BUT i do believe that there are many parts of it that have been spread over many arts... including shaolin do... so i guess hand me another class of the coolaid because my journey is about my self and my path and not some long ago art that is legend and supposed to make me .........? oh wait what is it that training in only the trues of the true that we all go nuts over will make us??...

On a side note i know of a teacher that has always said sin was fake but i resently learned that he is still teaching his students a lot of SD lower rank material, and he is a high ranking member of another style...??

yeah By family taught this material that Sin The fabricated so what does that say?

[Judge Pen]

yeah By family taught this material that Sin The fabricated so what does that say?

"Ng" family. Stupid auto correct.

[shen ku]

lol sounds like we may know the some of the same people.

[shen ku]

I was told of him changing things and how some forms were new, just wasn't told how new. But i feel from what all i have seen that he was taking parts of true material and breaking it down for us impatient what people... lol... lets be honest on here can be patient, we all want the latest and greatest and we want it NOW

[shen ku]

sorry........ white people

[Darthlawyer]

Eh, I knew enough about copyright law to know that the forms had to be relatively new to be copywritten.

Frankly, I don't believe that the order of the techniques in the form (for the most part, some moves do flow from one another) aren't really important. Nothing said in here indicates that the individual techniques aren't authentic.

If I was all about collecting only forms, I guess I might be upset about it. But I got into the system because I wanted to learn martial arts, and a friend said they had a good experience with this system.

I don't care if someone put the forms together 10 years ago or 2000 years ago. Either they work or they don't. Its still a good workout, and still just as interesting to me. Shaolin is really just a brand name anyway, when you come down to it. The material either stands on its own or it doesn't. I like the material I have learned.

[bodhi warrior]

"Ng" family. Stupid auto correct.

What material did they use?

[Judge Pen]

What material did they use?

Fei Hu and Lo Han Chien for sure. When I log into my work system, I'll post a clip of one of their former students doing parts of these forms and an e-mail he answered confirming that he learned these forms from an NG family practitioner.

[shen ku]

also way to break for doors, yellow belt form... i have a student with family in the system and they were watching class and talked to me about what all we did the same.

[bodhi warrior]

I'd like to see that.

[Yao Sing]

Most here agree choreography (forms) isn't all that important to them and are more concerned with the validity of the techniques. What I haven't heard is anyone address the multiple styles issue (Mantis, Bagua, etc.).

How does any of this new info relate to one of the biggest jabs at SD, how can one person teach, or even learn, so many completely different styles?

If he wasn't truthful about the form origins why believe he knows the styles he claims to know?

[Leto]

What I want to know is exactly what material is he claiming is his, and what is traditional shaolin from his teacher(s). When he says "50 to 60 materials", who knows what that means? Is he counting every short form, sparring technique, chin na, one step, nunchaku and staff spin as a separate form/"material"? If so, there is around 100 right there.
There are not 50 or 60 different forms up to black belt, even including 1st black belt. Or there are many more than that, if you count all the various short forms individually. I guess we'd all like to see what he put on that DVD. I guess it really doesn't matter, except for my own curiosity and for the sake of my own personal integrity. I am not going to just stop practicing the forms I like to practice, but I have always had a thing about knowing where they came from.
It seems like after this hearing, with some of the business practices having light shed on them, there may be a decline in SD/CSC. Or if not, at least more people speaking out about what they know and maybe an adjustment in their advertising practices. Will this let the people who have been with him since the 60's and 70's start telling the truth about the material?

[Judge Pen]

What I want to know is exactly what material is he claiming is his, and what is traditional shaolin from his teacher(s). When he says "50 to 60 materials", who knows what that means? Is he counting every short form, sparring technique, chin na, one step, nunchaku and staff spin as a separate form/"material"? If so, there is around 100 right there.
There are not 50 or 60 different forms up to black belt, even including 1st black belt. Or there are many more than that, if you count all the various short forms individually. I guess we'd all like to see what he put on that DVD. I guess it really doesn't matter, except for my own curiosity and for the sake of my own personal integrity. I am not going to just stop practicing the forms I like to practice, but I have always had a thing about knowing where they came from.
It seems like after this hearing, with some of the business practices having light shed on them, there may be a decline in SD/CSC. Or if not, at least more people speaking out about what they know and maybe an adjustment in their advertising practices. Will this let the people who have been with him since the 60's and 70's start telling the truth about the material?

Leto, it's hard to tell just from reading the transcript, and not having the exhibits they were referring to in order to put the testimony in context, but it seemed to me that he referred to the 20 sparring techniques as one form, nunchucku spins as one form, self-defense techniques as one form, ippons as one form, 1-30 short form as one form etc. for purposes of the copyright.

This lawyer never quizzed The on whether he learned some forms/systems from books/videos (a common accuasation of SD). He did ask him how many forms The knew and The claimed he could not remember all 900, maybe 300 right now. But later it seemed like that number was different when he was talking about the number of forms that were tradiational and taught to him by Master Ie.

So who knows? If I were teaching this material, and had been telling my students this was "traditional shaolin kung fu" I would have to do some soul searching as to how I represented things now. If the peopel that teach SD are going to overcome this, they need to start being upfront about waht they teach and clearly deliniate what is from The and what was taught to The from master Ie. Trouble is, most teachers are not privy to that information and were told that it is all traditional.

Back in the 80s and 90s when Sin The brought these types of suits you really didn't have to worry about depositions getting poseted online and it was very difficult to get copies of court materials unless you went to the Clerk of the court where the lawsuit was filed. Now it is a different world.

[Leto]

Yes, it sure is a different world, and I'd say in this case we're better for it. We have a whole world of sharing that is possible, and it is harder to keep things hidden.
I did finally get to read through the whole thing, and I agree with you, it sounds like he is referring to the 30 short forms as a single form. He also mentions that the last form on the video was a black tiger form, and that they were presented in curriculum order. That was one question I had, if he considered the black tigers as one of the traditional shaolin. Apparently they are his creations.

I am skeptical that he is being completely forthright about everything he was questioned about (why would he be?). And there is the matter of the other forms he created, since the time of the VHS. What are they? What exactly did he learn from Ie Chang Ming? He could have learned a lot if he was really training every day before and after school for four or five years. But not 900 forms. Not even 300 forms. Someone is going to have to take him up on the rest of this stuff some day.

There are so many other things I would have asked him under oath, but I guess none of it would have been applicable to the purpose of he deposition. I would have asked him if his senior students knew how much of the style was invented by him, and if he told them or they agreed to hide that information. He was quite evasive as it was on several topics they did ask, regarding the content of the book and the advertised claims.

[Old Noob]

At the risk of sounding like an apologist, I chose SD because I went to several kung fu schools in the DC area and the SD school was the least McDojo-y fees wise, if you can believe that, and because the sifu was the most engaged and best martial artist of the 5 or 6 I visited.

As for the material, I was frankly impressed with the organization of it and how the material builds on itself. Frankly, that alone made me a little skeptical as to it's ancient origins. That and the fact that a large number of Chinese MA instructors exaggerate their lineage claims. Finally, Im not a purist. I think MA should evolve. I like some preservation but I expect to see new "masters" add things and not merely preserve.

I think SD is a legitimately viable MA. There are those on the board who have never been SD supporters who nonetheless admit that SD practitioners tend to be in shape and are pretty good fighters. Their chief complaint is that the claims were bogus. I agree with those people. They need to market themselves for what they are: a system of Chinese origin, with Indonesian influence and additions by the current grandmaster, who, while having serious issues with the truth, is still a very good martial artist.

I frankly think the search for the "real shaolin" is a larpers farce.

[Old Noob]

I'm going to check with an IP lawyer but I suspect that videos submitted with a patent application are probably publicly available and would be given to a requestor for reproduction costs plus a nominal fee.

[kwaichang]

As I said before it is Truth I seek, nothing is as it was all things change. I personally wish to train in the most Original Chinese MA I can with out current dogma and influence, I doubt that exists but we can all dream cant we? Shaolin as it used to be is probably not as we think it was anyway. KC:confused:

[RenDaHai]

I frankly think the search for the "real shaolin" is a larpers farce.

Well, no. There IS an actual Shaolin temple. In the surrounding Song mountains there are literally hundreds of villages, a great many of which have old KungFu masters living there, all training styles that have come from the shaolin temple at some point in history. You can even see the evolution of its famous forms like XiaoHongQuan through the way they are performed in different villages, frozen in time from when they left the shaolin temple. This stuff is unquestionably Shaolin. If you speak Chinese, its easy to find.

I've seen some Shaolin Do. Although this guy may have made up the forms I doubt he changed the individual techniques. So even if the form is new (and the sequence does matter, it teaches strategy and combination where as individual moves are technique) the individual techniques would still be good stuff.

When you teach someone something you give it to them. Especially when they have paid a lot for it. The fact this guy is trying to copyright forms is really disgusting and is a reflection on his character. The actual technique is not his. It all seems pretty shady... If I were you guys I would accept I learned some good technique and realise it should be easy to transition into any other sect.

[Judge Pen]

Well, no. There IS an actual Shaolin temple. In the surrounding Song mountains there are literally hundreds of villages, a great many of which have old KungFu masters living there, all training styles that have come from the shaolin temple at some point in history. You can even see the evolution of its famous forms like XiaoHongQuan through the way they are performed in different villages, frozen in time from when they left the shaolin temple. This stuff is unquestionably Shaolin. If you speak Chinese, its easy to find.

I've seen some Shaolin Do. Although this guy may have made up the forms I doubt he changed the individual techniques. So even if the form is new (and the sequence does matter, it teaches strategy and combination where as individual moves are technique) the individual techniques would still be good stuff.

When you teach someone something you give it to them. Especially when they have paid a lot for it. The fact this guy is trying to copyright forms is really disgusting and is a reflection on his character. The actual technique is not his. It all seems pretty shady... If I were you guys I would accept I learned some good technique and realise it should be easy to transition into any other sect.

It is easy to transition. I've been lucky to have had the opportunity to train with a few non Sd martial artists and had no problem picking up a form or some technique from them. One of the largest obstacles is opportunity. Many Sders live in areas here their choice of style or teacher is limited. That can be true even in more populated areas. I came to grips that SD isn't exactly what was advertised a while ago but it did not diminish its value because I still received good martial training. I think these facts coming to light is a good thing and hopefully the elders in SD will realize that they have to adapt and embrace the truth of the origins and stop telling tall tales that sound good for marketing.

[Songshan]

Glad to see some of you are still at it, I hope all are well and training hard Traditional or not. Well it seems Bawang does not feel we are honoring the Shaolin name. What else is new. So I pose a question, is it better to train "traditional" and belittle others for what they do or to Train with the right spirit what ever you do and praise and accept others as Martial Artists with qualities and abilities ? Which is more traditional? also what of wing chun isnt its History questionable yet it is considered Traditional although very new in a MA sense. KC :)

I really like this post. Very well said :)

[Old Noob]

You can even see the evolution of its famous forms like XiaoHongQuan through the way they are performed in different villages, frozen in time from when they left the shaolin temple.

Not to get involved in a semantic debate but I think your quote actually illustrates my point. Something cannot be both an evolution and frozen in time. Even with the best of effort and intention, things will change from generation to generation; from teacher to student. We know that current Shaolin Temple MA is wu shu infused and, though I agree that village kung fu is unquestionably Shaolin derived, I submit that it is impossible that it is frozen in time and identical to that as was practiced in the temple. Heck, the temple itself was, to a degree, an evolving martial university. That's why I said you can't find the "real Shaolin.". The best you can do if that's what you want is to find the guys who wanted to innovate the least.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not defending the misrepresentations at all. I just think evolution in any martial system is a good thing as long as the innovator has a solid base from which to innovate.

[bodhi warrior]

I've said it before, I like all the material I've learned. I have no problem with the forms themselves. I have a problem being lied to. Once this gets out to more people, sin will not be able to draw the big numbers to his seminars. I mean how many forms do we need him to make up.
Some things he didn't create. Taichi, bagua, hsing ie, and probably hua quan. We'll never know how he obtained this material. But I'd sure like to know. This guys making six figures easy off hard working people because they think they're learning authentic shaolin.

[RenDaHai]

. Heck, the temple itself was, to a degree, an evolving martial university. That's why I said you can't find the "real Shaolin.". The best you can do if that's what you want is to find the guys who wanted to innovate the least.
.

But you really can. True it is evolving but that is Shaolin; It is still evolving. The latest stuff is evolving in a less desirable way... But you can still get the older stuff.

For example after it burned down in 1928 some famous masters who continued teaching in nearby villages were ShiZhenXu, ShiDeGen and LiGenShen (to name a few of many). Although they are all now dead, some of their direct disciples still live (they are old, but still practice and teach). They taught to their disciples what they learned at shaolin before 1928 and you can learn that today just as it was, taught through someone who trained directly with them. They have not changed the form but their explanation and deep understanding of the technique is itself their innovation. That is the real Shaolin.... True you can never know exactly what shaolin was at its Martial Peak in the 16th century....But what is around now is the direct evolution of that material, as evolved inside the Shaolin Temple itself... Thats as Shaolin as possible.

[Old Noob]

But you really can. True it is evolving but that is Shaolin; It is still evolving. The latest stuff is evolving in a less desirable way... But you can still get the older stuff.

For example after it burned down in 1928 some famous masters who continued teaching in nearby villages were ShiZhenXu, ShiDeGen and LiGenShen (to name a few of many). Although they are all now dead, some of their direct disciples still live (they are old, but still practice and teach). They taught to their disciples what they learned at shaolin before 1928 and you can learn that today just as it was, taught through someone who trained directly with them. They have not changed the form but their explanation and deep understanding of the technique is itself their innovation. That is the real Shaolin.... True you can never know exactly what shaolin was at its Martial Peak in the 16th century....But what is around now is the direct evolution of that material, as evolved inside the Shaolin Temple itself... Thats as Shaolin as possible.

I don't think we're disagreeing.

[Old Noob]

I've said it before, I like all the material I've learned. I have no problem with the forms themselves. I have a problem being lied to. Once this gets out to more people, sin will not be able to draw the big numbers to his seminars. I mean how many forms do we need him to make up.
Some things he didn't create. Taichi, bagua, hsing ie, and probably hua quan. We'll never know how he obtained this material. But I'd sure like to know. This guys making six figures easy off hard working people because they think they're learning authentic shaolin.

I think you're right. Those who were buying the "straight from the temple" stuff will be super miffed. As a person who wasn't necessarily shopping for that I'm less angry, especially since the whole story was so doubtful any way. Still, it is a pretty crappy thing to market a lie like that.

Do you really think he's pulling down six figures on seminars and testing fees?

Oh, and he did claim that all his seminar stuff was old stuff if you believe he wouldn't lie under oath.

[bodhi warrior]

I think you're right. Those who were buying the "straight from the temple" stuff will be super miffed. As a person who wasn't necessarily shopping for that I'm less angry, especially since the whole story was so doubtful any way. Still, it is a pretty crappy thing to market a lie like that.

Do you really think he's pulling down six figures on seminars and testing fees?

Oh, and he did claim that all his seminar stuff was old stuff if you believe he wouldn't lie under oath.

Well, he said he was averaging $8000-$9000 a year from that one small school. I know there's more than 13 schools under sin the'.

[Leto]

I'm sure he's getting three figures from the seminars and testing. I'm not really upset at that, good for him for setting up such a successfull organization. I just wish he hadn't lied or alllowed his students to lie about the ancient origins of the material.
Ren Da Hai: I agree, it is obvious he did not invent the individual techniques, for the most part, and it is easy to transition to any traditional style. He was lying or misunderstanding the question when he said under oath that he invented all the forms from scratch. There is clearly influence there from whatever tradition he learned, he just rearranged the pattern and order of moves. In some cases, he used the same name as forms found in other systems, and those forms bear some similarity to those of the same name (jie quan and lian wu zhang at least). I am curious what Ie Chang Ming actually taught.
I also like what I learned there, for the most part. I just felt my instruction was not in-depth enough, too much too fast. And I wasn't fond of the business practices, and found a lack of accurate knowledge of history and martial arts in general being perpetuated from the highest levels. But that is true of many many martial arts institutions, not a lot of people spend time researching martial arts history and exploring accurate information various styles.

Personally, I have been out of the system for 7 years now so there is not a real soul searching moment for me. I have taken what I learned there and supplemented it with teaching from other sources where the material overlaps (internal styles mostly), and continue to evolve those Sin The original forms based on my growing understanding.

[Old Noob]

Well, he said he was averaging $8000-$9000 a year from that one small school. I know there's more than 13 schools under sin the'.

I took that to mean that that's what he made off of the Soards' schools and not just Rydbergs.

[kungfujunky]

he makes well over that from the David soard and Sharon soard. and it was the soards who pushed him to sue Jake. Idiot move on their part.

IMO they (David soard and sharon soard) are terrible martial artists and poor teachers.

[One student]

So who was it who said this thread was over?

I feel compelled though to post my take on all this, and from my perspectives. It is cathartic for me, maybe it will be for others, too.

Like JP, I have done hundreds of depositions, and read that many more. That gives me some kind of insight on some of that transcript, that JP might appreciate, too.

The typos and complete misunderstanding of what was being said is evident. Maybe partly GMT's speech (those who have personally spoken to him know what I mean), some being the court reporter evidently having no idea what he was saying, does taint it some. What is "brick" form? I've heard him use the word "swamp" for saliva; "chop" and "hand" for each other and for "elbow," "knee" and "leg" and "foot" interchangeably, etc. This has to be considered in reading it.

And, there is definitely a disconnect between the attorney and GMT. I think the attorney was asking one question, and GMT was answering something completely different, and they each didn't figure that out. And not knowing the questioner, I wonder what MA experience he has, although it could be vast for all I know. I don't think the attorney ever figured out the difference between levels and degrees.

And there are language barriers that are evident in the questions and answers that tell me, or at least in my opinion, they were not always on the same page. And that does make a difference (see below).

And I'm not sure I'm impressed with the thoroughness of the questioning either. From a legal perspective, or from a SD perspective, we are all questioning that the attorney never got down to the bottom of exactly what came from where, what was the "29," how much and what exactly is his original product and how much came from his teachers (and there were apparently more than one). Does "my material" mean it came completely from scratch, was it a rearranging or breaking up into parts of somethign else?

And particularly curious to me, is how his brother came to teach the same exact things for so long -- and those who were in class with both GMT and his brother MH know, they had quirks in hand positions and stances that varied, particularly in the pre-black material. What, did ST teach HT all that stuff, too? And HT just tweaked it a little himself?

I'm not sure I'm not impressed by being able to make that much stuff up, and keep it for all that time.

And we would all like to have known the answer to the rumors re: pulling material from available books or recordings that had nothing to do with his own actual training. Or the process of recovering material from his old resources (notes or whatever), and how that effects the end result he now teaches.

And it is always distasteful to hear someone openly discuss the business aspects of martial arts, particularly when one has to make a living doing it. Not too many homeless beggar hermit priest teachers these days, are there? And I just don't fault someone for being unhappy, if not angry, after teaching something you were trusted with, that you have dedicated your life to, to someone else, which yes is a trust relationship, and something that apparently is valuable enough for that someone to decide the money he can make from it is more important than honor and loyalty, to use what was taught to them to compete against them. Maybe I am too naive to appreciate what honor and loyalty, "martial honor" or not, means.

So a lot of unaswered questions.

But, look at the presentation. GMT was not, in my opinion, being evasive or particularly clever (or "Clintonesque," as I sometimes say). He answered the questions. There wasn't a lot of excessive and unnecessary "I don't recall" or "I don't remember that at this time," or "To the best of my recollection," etc. And he has done this enough by now, and has to know the internet will carry all this, that he had to know what questions would be asked of him, and that his answers would become public. So if he had the choice of fudging his answers to suit the lawsuit, or the bigger picture of the impact on every student and school under him, which did he pick?

It seemed to me he answered what was asked as candidlly as he could, language differences considered, and I don't perceive he considered that he was contradicting that much of what he has said, or others have said in his name, although I suspect he was uncomfortable with the wording others have used, and is now used against him. But he didn't throw them under the bus, so to speak. And I don't perceive he thought he was telling anything entirely inconsistent with anything he has said before.

And I am not prepared to judge the real cultural differences that might be showing, as far as what is legitimate embellishment of legends or even rumors. As many others have said, a lot of TCMA schools do that.

As I've said in court many a time, if he wanted to lie, he could have easily done a much better job than that. He's been trying to protect what he does from piracy for a long time. I don't see anything wrong with that part. I atttempted to write contracts for a teacher once, to protect his teachings (and did it for free out of loyalty to the sifu). Between GMT and his lawyers (assuming they know IP law better than I do), I suspect they had to know the limits of what can be done to protect what he wanted protected, if he could, and that choices were made when filing these suits.

And the language does make a difference. For example, at recent seminars he presented some things named, "Tiger Pa Kua" this and that. But it wasn't actually in any way connected to Pa Kua Chang or Ba Gua Zhang, it just happened that the characters in the name included the characters for "eight trigrams," and there you go. Without that undestanding, a lot of misunderstanding from the words used.

That is my legal/professional perspective.

[One student]

Which leads me to my SD perspective.

Did he, or instead did those under him promoting him and his (actually their own) schools, say: Short kata/form 1-30 are the original short forms taught at the Shaolin Temple? Or that every form or technique was all and each, pure 100% direct from the Temple? Or as I recall, from when I first took a SD class in 1977 or 1978 or so, I was told, directly (as I recall), the material "comes from" or is "based on" or is "derived from" the material taught at the Shaolin Temple. I used to tell my own students, "You know that TV show, "Kung Fu"? That's where our material came from." I'm not sure that is different than what he said in the deposition. And I can't say I ever thought any particular form was or was not THE Shaolin form. I thought I was learning Shaolin martial arts from someone who knew more martial arts and more about Shaolin than I did. I still think that.

Like someone else said, at the time I took my first martial arts class, which was TKD, I didn't know Shaolin from Shotokan or Shorin-Ryu or whatever, other than what I saw on the TV show. My uncle, an advanced black belt in a very traditional Shotokan (or Shorin-Ryu, not sure now which) school, very hard core, asked me about what I did when I turned first black in SD, and I used the word "karate" more than once in describing "Shaolin-Do." I remember now (but didn't catch it then) his quizzical look when I said that, and my lack of understanding when he said, "But that's Chinese." "Yeah, so?"

I never thought I was getting training like I would have had if I had been a Shaolin monk. Anyone who thought that I think was lying to themselves. I've thought more than once that it would be insulting to Shaolin to start wearing robes or shaving our head: we were not "Shaolin." But we did mayflower posts carrying water buckets. And iron hand/bone training. And breathing mediation and chi kung. And very hard conditioning training. He make all that up, too? Where did the detailed meditation, chi kung, and internal methods I have from GMT come from? Where did Liu Hsing come from? Why have I seen things he teaches, with variations though, repeated in books and texts -- published after he taught it -- that are identical or similar to his teachings, and then the non-SD author also connect it to Shaolin tradition? I've seen that many a time.

Think about this: When GMT first started teaching at UK in the 60's, what in the world did anyone know about a "Shaolin Temple"? Or noticed gi's instead of sammi's? Or knew the difference between a kata and a form, a dojo and a kwoon, a sensei or a sifu? A "do" or a "tao"? Not a thing. And those people saw something in Sin Kwang The that made them follow him, some for decades. And not just words made that happen, but deeds, actions, performance, skills. I myself have seen GMT do things, in the 80's mostly, and I've seen his elder students do things, that in my 30+ years of trying I still can't do. He can do things now, at his age, I'd like to do at mine. Those people didn't follow him then, or now, and learn to do that, because of "lineage" and propaganda and legends, but by being shown it, and by doing it.

And like others have said, when many have decided, "I'm going to start training in martial arts, what was there to choose from?" I started in Tae Kwon Do, and my TKD teacher was a 1st Black SD, too. I heard from him about SD, and went to a SD class, and figured, I can do more than punch, block, kick, I can learn about animal styles, weapons, and internal practice. Didn't care what uniforms were what or anything else, I would have still gone with SD.

And I've been to and trained, in addition to TKD, many other schools since then, including Ninjitusu (a Stephen Hayes school), judo, and more recently, Tien Shien Pai. I've gone to non-SD training in kung fu weapons, aki-jujitsu, judo, and Hsing Ie. And they didn't give me anything any better than the SD material.

So, what happened when stories started and then snowballed into what many people think they've been told; but directly, by who? So many of the people who have been taught by GMT, or by his students, or their students, have made their own speeches, and spread their own propaganda. And most of us know, and sometimes to our regret, GMT exerted a lot less control over his various schools than maybe he could have or should have. I was personally offended when students of his, contemporaries with me at the time, decided they thought their schools should be called something different, and wear different uniforms, than GMT and everyone else; and GMT allowed that. Does not that lack of honor and loyalty reflect worse on a martial artist, than exaggerating a lineage? But I digress.

So how does it effect my practice? To be continued . . . .

[One student]

So reading the transcript, I ask myself, what does it mean to my practice? Did not this thread start with someone, essentially, questioning the benefits of SD? So we are right back to the same question, and the same answer, asked so many times before: What do you get from SD? Anything? Then, good, keep at it. If not, do something else. Are you going to get so much more from something else? Practicing SD has given me fitness levels (varying with the consistency of my practice) I never had; along with a practical benefit I would not have by mere running or weight training. I credit the Tai Chi Chuan GMT taught me with fixing a knee ailment I had. I've embarrassed much bigger and stronger people than I, with minimal techniques learned in SD. And I am nothing compared to some of the people who have done SD longer, and shorter, time than I have.

And does this transcript really mean it is all a fake? Bruce Lee made up JKD from something. Would it not be honest for him to say it "came from" what he learned before inventing JKD? I know more than one Master, "Black Belt" Hall of Fame and everything, who made up entire systems from the hodge podge of stuff they grew up learning -- "eclectic" it is called. Penn & Teller did a show debunking martial arts, and had much more tradional, nationally known, respected by the "martial arts community," teachers/schools doing the same thing: promoting their art as "the best" or "the original," making people, kids, think they can fight, by flailing around in sparring class that would more likely get them killed in a real fight. Isn't that worse?

What about the famous teacher who claimed he could strike pressure points to disable an opponent, and it only worked (on film) on his students? Or the guy who demonstrated on his students the ability to physically manipulate them without touching them -- but it strangely didn't work on someone else who kicked his a--?

And lets face it: someone made up everything at one point or another. And I know, the first person who ever taught Tai Chi, or Pa Kua, or Hsing Ie, or a tiger or crane or whatever, wouldn't recognize it today. I am not convinced that modifying material, or even making up forms, although it had to come from what he learned, is that bad or that different. He didn't invent a bow stance, or a head block, or a side kick, or a tiger claw, or a pressure point. Is it that much different to put those things in a different order or sequence? If the ingredients are the same, even if not in the same sequence, isn't it the same meal? Or taste the same? Is not pieces of Shaolin, put togther 4-2-3-0-1, that different from 0-1-2-3-4? Is it worse? Or is it better?

And so we question GMT for telling us his material is from, or is, Shaolin. If he was taught by Chinese elders (no one has really ever said that wasn't true), who said they were taught from Shaolin material, did he not learn Shaolin kung fu? Did he not learn from the world of Shaolin? Does anyone think they taught him, the same way and methods and exact forms, they were taught?

And therefore, did not he teach, even what he made up, from Shaolin? If he showed us how to punch, is that not a Shaolin punch, if that is how he was taught to punch? What else could it be, if that is where he got it? Even if he also added temple blocks, sweeps, or other techniques to it? Is it less Shaolin kung fu, if it is rearranged to suit Western patience, Western tastes, Western understanding? Does anyone fault him for not starting his first classes, with a language handicap and time contraints he didn't have with GGM. Ie, with the same methods and materials that he started with? Would he be any less of a teacher, if he did not tailor what he taught to his students?

As for varying the material, I've seen people who took the same classes I did, do the same material, and I hardly recognize it. Many of GMT's outlying schools are well known for putting their own spins on the material GMT taught them.

Sometimes that is for benign reasons; sometimes it is just sloppiness. But why is what GMT admitted doing so wrong -- tailoring his material, what he knew, which had to be based on what he learned from Chinese kung fu/Shaolin based teachers -- for his students, even if it included making something up based on his Shaolin basics?

So I frame the question as the accuracy of what I was told. And I'm not prepared, yet, to say that because I was told the martial arts I was taught came from Shaolin, that I was lied to because it is not the Shaolin taught at the Temples in the 1600's. We all know that what is taught (or demo'd, more accurately) at the Temples now is closer to Peking Opera than Shaolin. Don't tell me that every one who teaches a form or a kata outside of SD, in other schools, teaches it the same way it was taught to them. Or the same thing, with no changes. How much of a "master" are they, if all they can do is regurgitate what they were shown?

And therefore I am not prepared to say that because he learned Shaolin methods and techiques and material and forms, from Shaolin based teachers and from Shaolin based methods and techiques and forms, and taught me what he said -- what I've always thought, and I don't think his deposition says otherwise -- was Shaolin based methods and techiques and forms, and that because they were not all the same forms he was taught or that were taught at the Temple, that what I have learned is worthless and I have been deceived. Or, that he knowingly or intentionally deceived.

My bottom line might be, he has probably forgotten more martial arts than I'll ever know (maybe figuratively and literally); but regardless, he knew then, and knows now, more martial arts than I knew then or know now. And that's what a teacher should be. Even if it is not as pure as something else might be. I'm just not so sure he ever said everything he taught was 100% exact Shaolin forms, and that is what he is being criticized for admitting is not true in his deposition.

So bring on the "you are rationalizing," "you are a SD/GMT apologist," etc. I'm not sure I am going to deny it. So what?

[One student]

Quoting Leto: "I also like what I learned there, for the most part. I just felt my instruction was not in-depth enough, too much too fast. And I wasn't fond of the business practices, and found a lack of accurate knowledge of history and martial arts in general being perpetuated from the highest levels. But that is true of many many martial arts institutions, not a lot of people spend time researching martial arts history and exploring accurate information various styles. "

This is unfortunately so true, these days more than in the past. I learned material in the 80's that he would take weeks and months to teach, that he'll do now in an afternoon. I've seen peole in the classses who have no idea what they are seeing, much less what they are doing (from time to time, me included). So, it is left to the individual practitioner to take that material, and learn from it what they can. Not exactly not unlike the proverb though, "I will not give you the gold, but I will give you the way to find it." Or something like that.

[One student]

I just wish he hadn't lied or alllowed his students to lie about the ancient origins of the material.


I'm not sure how much is a lie (which is, "I know it is absolutely wrong but I'm going to say it anyway"), as opposed to runaway rhetoric and "puffing" and not clarifying legends and stories as not absollute truth, and maybe some cultural issues, too, I'm not sure. But not the same as "lying." And I'm not sure "ancient origin of the material" is not accurate as to the source, techniques, methods, having the "ancient origin," and some of the forms, as opposed to each and every one of the exact forms. But still wish, as I would for any freind I see in difficult circumstances, it wasn't as it appears. But then I wish he would not have allowed a lot of his schools to do as some did, and that he would not be as free with rank advancement, and many other things I would do if it were my school. But it isn't. Maybe he was was being more self-examining when he once said, in describing the name of a form he was teaching, although not what it sounded like: "It is his form, he can call it whatever he wants."

[kwaichang]

Well written One Student I agree with much of what you have said, KC

[shen ku]

very well said one student, i teach SD and i would say for the most part none of my students are there just because it was "Shaolin"

[Leto]

I would assume the lawyer was asking questions based on the instruction of his client. He obviously wasn't clear on the whole "form" and "kata" thing, and the "belts" and "levels" thing. But he did ask a lot of good questions that someone without any coaching never would have known to ask. Someone who knew martial arts better could have made the questions more pointed and been more specific, it is true. I also felt like there might have been a language barrier preventing complete understanding...but I couldn't assume that GM The isn't really understanding the questions or answering them accurately. The matter of his brother is still mysterious. Why would he claim that Ie was his grandfather? Or did he not really claim that, but that is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation by his students? I am curiously what caused the two of them to part ways, as he obviously did not want to say anything bad about his brother or share their personal stuff (understandably). But I feel the answer to that mystery may shed light on some of the questions people have about the system.

I really want to know what material is from where, that is all I have ever wanted. Some of the forms he claims to have created I like, and I would like to know what they were based on so I can get a better insight into them. Maybe SKT doesn't know much of the history himself, as he was only a child when he learned from Ie Chang Ming. When I was 13 years old, I didn't really ask a lot of questions of my sensei about history or anything. I accepted the stories I was told, and trained like I was told. But that is just speculation.
I want to know what his sources were outside the style he learned from Ie Chang Ming. If there are manuals or books or videos involved, I would like to know which ones because I would look for them myself. I can learn from books and videos on my own as well as I can get it second hand from someone else. All that is needed is a training partner or two to work it out with.

shen ku: will you tell your students what you know of the origin of the forms you are teaching them? For instance, will you tell new students that the qin na or the sparring techniques or si men tao lian, or whatever form they are learning, are exercises created by GM The in the 60's or 70's, for the purpose of introducing new students to the system? Or do you feel that that type of information isn't important for anyone to know? Of course, it doesn't affect someone's ability to fight or be in shape...but shouldn't tradition be addressed in a system that identifies itself as a traditional martial art?

[Judge Pen]

I agree that I thought GM The was being very honest in answering the questions in the deposition with the exception of his rationalization in not admitting that he made this material up. I don't buy that he didn't want to be boastful; I think it is better for buisness to be ambigious on these points. And I think this ambiguity became more of a misrepresention in the retelling and he allowed that to continue.

I don't know GM The as well as others. I've had dinner with him on more than one occassion and always thoguht he was very personable and open with questions when asked. But he also liked to tell tall tales. These tales then get passed along as truth. The college sports phrase "lack of institutional control" comes to mind. GM The has shown an unwillingness to exert too much control on his elder students with the larger schools and lets them do things as they see fit. Which is why you get such a difference in the art from one school to the next.

[Orion Paximus]

My teacher's school was shut down because Sin The wasn't willing to stand up to the Soards. My teacher couldn't afford to travel to Colorado to test for his 3rd or 4th, and asked if he could test under Grooms or Leonard, he was refused and sent a letter to GM The and The's solution was to tell him he could no longer teach the material. This was in 1998 or so. That soured me.

In the end it worked out the best for me because I got to train with some true traditional CMA masters, but I always felt bad for my teacher. I also kept up with the material i was trained in because I have this OCD thing about losing any material. I did find some similarities with the Shaolin-Do stuff and the ideas of traditional CMA, but it would take a lot of reworking to make it look like traditional CMA. When I left Shaolin-Do i was a "Black Belt" so I had like 42 forms i knew.

[Judge Pen]

Fei Hu and Lo Han Chien for sure. When I log into my work system, I'll post a clip of one of their former students doing parts of these forms and an e-mail he answered confirming that he learned these forms from an NG family practitioner.

I could not find the clip, but it was part of National Geographic's Fight Science Alex Huynh was demonstrationg some kung fu moves and he did moves that looked to be parts of sequences from LoHan Chien and Fei Hu Chu Tong. This was discussed previously on this thread here: http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32782&pp=10&page=351

As a result, I e-mailed Alex Huynh and that e-mail is below:

Mr. [Pen],

Yes indeed, that was Lohan Chien and Fei Fu Chu Tong (I'm afraid I just butchered the spelling). I studied ShaoLin Kungfu under Instructor David White and Grandmaster John Winglock Ng. That's where I got my official start in the Chinese martial arts. Wushu came much later (I've done traditional for over 15 years, Wushu for maybe 4 years), contrary to popular belief.

I'm very glad you got to see the program and I hope you enjoyed it. There are many things that were cut from the show due to time restraints, but I did my best to represent the Chinese arts. Thank you for watching to show, stay tuned for more!

Sincerely,
Alex Huynh


On 10/9/06, [Judge Pen] wrote:
Alex,

In the "Fight Science" show you demonstrated moves in a form that are, move for move, identical to forms that I know including a forms known to me as "LoHan Chien" and "Fei Hu" I'm curious to know where you learned these sequences....Did you train with anyone that studied these forms? Did you learn them from your shaolin instructor?

I appreciate in advance your cooperation and courtesy in my questions. I look forward to hearing back from you.

[Judge Pen]

***********

No this is even more interesting in that these two forms are supposedly part of the forms GM The claims a copyright to and were supposedly created by him.

[shen ku]

JP, Rick Pickens, now a very high master in Ng family, started in SD under Bob Green. He made it to black belt, this has been along time ago, but i have been told by one of his students that they, at times, have used some of these forms. So i believe that answers how that got into others hands.

as to if i will talk with my students about it .yes. not sure exactly how i will do this just yet. i had been told long ago that things had been changed, for us slow white people. I feel that the lower material surved a pupose to build us step by step to someplace that we needed to be. the skill level increase with each level. but i do wonder if master ie not really wanting GMS to teach us in the first place had any thing to do with this, just a thought

[bodhi warrior]

[QUOTE=Shane;1164467]True story. Master Rick is my Baguazhang master.

Just in case it's not clear, GM Ng never taught any of the same forms that are seen in SD. The thing is that because they exist in the same "home area" geographically, a lot of Ng Family students had previously trained in SD (some of them having high level ranks). When these folks eventually opened their own schools, they taught whatever they wanted to. GM Ng didn't really tell people what to teach once they were on their own or exercise control over their schools that I'm aware of other than visiting from time to time. I can think of at least three 1st gen. Ng Family masters that were in SD before they met GM Ng. Could've been more maybe.

Master Rick doesn't teach anything besides GM Ng's Baguazhang and knife work anymore, I don't think. But back in the day (prior to my training w/ him), I think he still taught three or four SD forms before he taught them GM Ng's system. I never asked him why he did that, I just heard it through the grapevine.

Just curious what style of bagua he teaches. I learned Jiang Rongqiao's original form back around '86 from Sin The'. I practice this form daily. I've been influenced by Gerald sharp, Ted mancuso, Novell bell, kang ge wu, all of whom practice this style. Curious to see what other bagua styles are in ky.

[shen ku]

didn't mean to say he was still teaching those, just saying that i know people who learned them from him, with a little twist here and there, maybe like some breathing work and such add in.

shane, just asking but how is master rick doing, last time i saw him he seemed to be doing alot better then he was after the car reck?

[RJ797]

I don't think Sin The' made up everything on the tape he submitted for copyright. I think that tape represents most, if not everything he learned in Indonesia. When his brother came to the States he already had this material. Sin The' frequently told the story of the brothers going through the "lower belt" material to confirm they both were teaching the same thing and having to call Ie Chang Ming to settle disputes. If Sin The' invented this stuff upon his arrival in the States how did Hiang get it and how could there be any debate about what was right?

Another thing (of many) that doesn't add up is the need to make stuff up if you have 900 forms. We have seen many simple forms and training foundations over the years. He could have used the basic Mantis training for instance. So, why didn't he pull something from his vast body of material? Because he only had a fairly small body of material.

What does all this mean? He lied in the deposition to try and establish copyright control. He feels he needs the "hammer" of the copyright to keep control. The Soards have certainly used the copyright threat on regular basis.

Sin The' has tremendous basic martial skills, he can hit and kick at a very high level. He has the type of skill you develop from years of practice on fundamentals, not years of practice trying to memorize one form after another.

If it wasn't clear before, it should be clear now. Sin The arrived here with a more normal amount of material and a lot of skill. He taught out what he knew and felt to keep students he needed to teach them new things, so he pulled something out of a book and has continued to "teach" new material he took from books.

[bodhi warrior]

I don't think Sin The' made up everything on the tape he submitted for copyright. I think that tape represents most, if not everything he learned in Indonesia. When his brother came to the States he already had this material. Sin The' frequently told the story of the brothers going through the "lower belt" material to confirm they both were teaching the same thing and having to call Ie Chang Ming to settle disputes. If Sin The' invented this stuff upon his arrival in the States how did Hiang get it and how could there be any debate about what was right?

Another thing (of many) that doesn't add up is the need to make stuff up if you have 900 forms. We have seen many simple forms and training foundations over the years. He could have used the basic Mantis training for instance. So, why didn't he pull something from his vast body of material? Because he only had a fairly small body of material.


What does all this mean? He lied in the deposition to try and establish copyright control. He feels he needs the "hammer" of the copyright to keep control. The Soards have certainly used the copyright threat on regular basis.

Sin The' has tremendous basic martial skills, he can hit and kick at a very high level. He has the type of skill you develop from years of practice on fundamentals, not years of practice trying to memorize one form after another.

If it wasn't clear before, it should be clear now. Sin The arrived here with a more normal amount of material and a lot of skill. He taught out what he knew and felt to keep students he needed to teach them new things, so he pulled something out of a book and has continued to "teach" new material he took from books.

You make some very interesting points. I wondered if he lied during the deposition also.

[Leto]

I don't think Sin The' made up everything on the tape he submitted for copyright. I think that tape represents most, if not everything he learned in Indonesia. When his brother came to the States he already had this material. Sin The' frequently told the story of the brothers going through the "lower belt" material to confirm they both were teaching the same thing and having to call Ie Chang Ming to settle disputes. If Sin The' invented this stuff upon his arrival in the States how did Hiang get it and how could there be any debate about what was right?

Another thing (of many) that doesn't add up is the need to make stuff up if you have 900 forms. We have seen many simple forms and training foundations over the years. He could have used the basic Mantis training for instance. So, why didn't he pull something from his vast body of material? Because he only had a fairly small body of material.

What does all this mean? He lied in the deposition to try and establish copyright control. He feels he needs the "hammer" of the copyright to keep control. The Soards have certainly used the copyright threat on regular basis.

Sin The' has tremendous basic martial skills, he can hit and kick at a very high level. He has the type of skill you develop from years of practice on fundamentals, not years of practice trying to memorize one form after another.

If it wasn't clear before, it should be clear now. Sin The arrived here with a more normal amount of material and a lot of skill. He taught out what he knew and felt to keep students he needed to teach them new things, so he pulled something out of a book and has continued to "teach" new material he took from books.

That's a reasonable hypothesis. How could anyone here in the US ever prove whether or not he invented those forms? You'd think that there would be some contemporaries of the The's in Bandung, other students of Ie Chang Ming around somewhere, who still knew those forms as well. It would just take someone with the means and the desire to go there and do some research.

[Orion Paximus]

not comprehensive, i know, but a quick google search found only a few Wushu schools in Bandung, none of which touted any lineage through Ie Chang Ming

also here is a weird site, I guess it's Sin The's brother's site but it talks about Ming being his grandfather and mentions other contemporaries
http://www.angelfire.com/ego/shaolinwarrior/Hiang.html

[Fist of Death]

That is not Master Hiang's site. His site is: www.centralshaolin.com

[RJ797]

In 1992 there was a large joint demonstration with a bunch of US students under Sin The' and several of his colleagues students who learned from Ie Chang Ming in Bandung. One of the Bandung students performed the brown belt broadsword form. There was a series of posts about this almost 5 years ago.
http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=786366&postcount=5948

[Judge Pen]

I don't think Sin The' made up everything on the tape he submitted for copyright. I think that tape represents most, if not everything he learned in Indonesia. When his brother came to the States he already had this material. Sin The' frequently told the story of the brothers going through the "lower belt" material to confirm they both were teaching the same thing and having to call Ie Chang Ming to settle disputes. If Sin The' invented this stuff upon his arrival in the States how did Hiang get it and how could there be any debate about what was right?

If this is true, then he lied under oath to protect a business investment. He stated, in no uncertain terms, that he created this material, it was not what Ie taught him and it is not traditional kung fu. Lying under oath is worse in my mind.

[bodhi warrior]

In 1992 there was a large joint demonstration with a bunch of US students under Sin The' and several of his colleagues students who learned from Ie Chang Ming in Bandung. One of the Bandung students performed the brown belt broadsword form. There was a series of posts about this almost 5 years ago.
http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=786366&postcount=5948

I seen that video. It was very close to what we do.

[Vajramusti]

now that the question of SD being "real" has been answered, how r we going to stretch this baby out to 1,000 pages? :confused::confused::confused::confused:
---------------------------------------------------------
Surely this thread deserves a special DAFFY award!

joy chaudhuri

[kwaichang]

Do the teachers of SD still teach it as it is or change it and teach the so called real forms as a System unto itself? Or what? SD teachers what do you think what are You going to do, Be TRuthful and go from there or teach it as it is or what? KC

[shen ku]

i will keep teaching what i teach , i will start to talk about when it was made and what it takes us to, which is the real issue to me. i have been going over alot of it this week and thinking, i love these moves and i have gotten alot out of them,, so....

[RJ797]

What to do from here? Teach proper structure and mechanics. The Shaolin-Do teachers who have relied on the grandiose stories about lineage and 900 forms will probably struggle because they most likely don't really have any true understanding of fundamentals.

Unfortunately, our system is over populated with people who just want to see the next form and not really develop an understanding of the basics. Too much of our system's politics have revolved around repeating the sequence of moves Sin The' has shown and then arguing about whether someone did the right move. Not whether or not what they did made any martial sense.

Sin The' has never been good at doing the exact same thing each time but the Bill Leonards and the Soards of our world insist the only "right" way is the way they believe they were shown - regardless of quality. Bill Leonard is a great fighter but his understanding and performance of Tai Chi and Pa Kua is not very good. Yet, most of our system will blindly follow and do what they are being taught regardless of the obvious fact that it's not very good.

So, what's going to happen? The people who questioned, analyzed and taught solid mechanics but downplayed the "stories" - may survive. Those who built a house cards with the stories and blindly taught material they didn't really understand are going to have a tough time.

[Judge Pen]

What to do from here? Teach proper structure and mechanics. The Shaolin-Do teachers who have relied on the grandiose stories about lineage and 900 forms will probably struggle because they most likely don't really have any true understanding of fundamentals.

Unfortunately, our system is over populated with people who just want to see the next form and not really develop an understanding of the basics. Too much of our system's politics have revolved around repeating the sequence of moves Sin The' has shown and then arguing about whether someone did the right move. Not whether or not what they did made any martial sense.

Sin The' has never been good at doing the exact same thing each time but the Bill Leonards and the Soards of our world insist the only "right" way is the way they believe they were shown - regardless of quality. Bill Leonard is a great fighter but his understanding and performance of Tai Chi and Pa Kua is not very good. Yet, most of our system will blindly follow and do what they are being taught regardless of the obvious fact that it's not very good.

So, what's going to happen? The people who questioned, analyzed and taught solid mechanics but downplayed the "stories" - may survive. Those who built a house cards with the stories and blindly taught material they didn't really understand are going to have a tough time.

Very well said.

[RJ797]

It was very obvious. By teaching huge blocks of material in a crowded room in an absurdly small amount of time, all the focus was on memorizing the moves with no time or interest in making sense out of and developing skill with anything.

[MasterKiller]

It was very obvious. By teaching huge blocks of material in a crowded room in an absurdly small amount of time, all the focus was on memorizing the moves with no time or interest in making sense out of and developing skill with anything.

If you watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOi63m2nwbM

and can't tell it was made up in someone's living room while NCIS was on, you deserve to be duped.

[Lucas]

my favorite is when he slaps his knee over and over.

[Yao Sing]

Yeah that's a knee slapin' good form right there I tell ya what.

Better yet how about using 2 canes like tonfa (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foDXjaSyQMk)?

[Old Man]

1992. The vs Hamilton lawsuit. Hiang The produce in court all the original note he have from 1960's before he leave Indonesia. Every piece his brother claim to make up, Hiang have note to prove him wrong. The record are seal but Hiang go against his brother and stand for the true.

[kungfujunky]

1992. The vs Hamilton lawsuit. Hiang The produce in court all the original note he have from 1960's before he leave Indonesia. Every piece his brother claim to make up, Hiang have note to prove him wrong. The record are seal but Hiang go against his brother and stand for the true.

What this illustrates to me is that The lied on the stand to try to uphold his copy write claim...which tells me he is just a money grubber and a bully to those that see through his deception and try to do things right by leaving his organization.

There are some exceptional instructors in the art of shaolin-do...who focus on the concepts behind the material and try to bring it out.

But they are a small percentage. The schools out west will have a hard time surviving after this.

[MasterKiller]

What this illustrates to me is that The lied on the stand to try to uphold his copy write claim...

Yeah, which is more likely? A fantastical oral history uncorroborated by any historical record anywhere or Sin The' lied to a bunch of whiteys to make a few bucks? Boy, that's a tough one....

[RenDaHai]

So, basically, has his own greed undone himself?

Let me get this straight:

In an effort to retroactively copyright something that he taught (which is already crazy) so he can get more money, he has destroyed his reputation and probably lost a lot of followers and even more money in the process?

Is that about right?

[LFJ]

Wondering if this thread can now be moved to the Non-Chinese MA section of the site. It doesn't belong or deserve to be always at the top of the Shaolin Kung Fu forum.

[Leto]

Yeah, which is more likely? A fantastical oral history uncorroborated by any historical record anywhere or Sin The' lied to a bunch of whiteys to make a few bucks? Boy, that's a tough one....

A little of column A, a little of column B...
My guess is it was a small, probably unremarkable school in the Chinese community of Bandung, that no one would ever have heard of except the people who went there. A small amount of basic material from that school (as much as an 18 year old could have mastered over the course of his adolescent years), and a lot of physical conditioning. And the mystique of being from Asia and knowing martial arts in Kentucky in 1965. Mix in a childhood fantasy of being a shaolin master, a somewhat entitled life as the son of an extremely wealthy family (who could afford to send all their children overseas for university educations, buy them real rolex watches, get them private lessons in martial arts, etc), and we have all the ingredients for the creation of the myth of shaolin-do.
I know all his original students claim Sin The was extremely skilled back in the day, but could it just have been that he was in such great shape and was faster, stronger, and more flexible than all of them, with a small amount of basic training? Having attended a few of his seminars 10 years ago or so, I didn't see any of the amazing skill everyone attributes to him. I've never seen a video of him where I was impressed by his performance. I've seen the old pictures of him looking ripped and doing impressive poses, and I probably would have been impressed by him, too, if I had seen him that way.
But I really feel like all he does now is find instructional books and videos from China, or wherever, and try to teach that material in seminars. Some of the seminars might be things he invented, like that golden leopard form seems to me, based on misguided ideas about pressure point fighting.
I would like to find out I am wrong, and there really is a lineage for all the stuff he shows, but the point is moot since he and most of his schools have done such a poor job actually teaching that material.

example: I learned more about taijiquan from reading cheng man ching's book on his 37 posture form and yang chengfu's traditional yang style book than I did in my class. I corrected a lot of mistakes and incorrect postures that I was taught. Same with Jian Rong Qiao's baguazhang. Once I found out that this was the form I had learned (or was supposed to be), I fixed my form by reading Jiang Rong Qiao's baguazhang lian xi fa and watching videos of people performing it. How I was taught was so messed up!
I am doing the same with my xingyiquan five elements.
As for the lower belt through black tiger forms, I am going with my gut on those and modifying them for myself as I see fit, based on my experience in other martial arts and the little traditional shaolin I have learned. If there is something profound in those forms, I wasn't taught them correctly to see it, and if Sin The invented them all, then I probably have as much or more experience than he did when he created them and feel like I am qualified to experiment with them a bit. Why bother? I actually like the forms, they just need some "tweaking". Until I meet a "real" shaolin teacher, this will have to do for my external practice, along with the shorin ryu I've been practicing all these years and supplemental instruction videos on Chinese martial arts.

[RJ797]

So, basically, has his own greed undone himself?

Let me get this straight:

In an effort to retroactively copyright something that he taught (which is already crazy) so he can get more money, he has destroyed his reputation and probably lost a lot of followers and even more money in the process?

Is that about right?


I say that's about right.

If you read the deposition he said he didn't want to appear "boastful" so he didn't tell us he invented some of the material. It seems to me that laying claim to being the Shaolin Grand Master is slightly more "boastful" than saying "Here are some developmental techniques I put together to help you get the point where I can teach you some more advanced ancient forms."

Obviously, some person invented all the forms all of us do in any art. I'm not sure Sin The' invented anything he taught. Why go through the effort of putting something together and memorizing it when you can pull from thousands of books?

Most of the time we saw something new people outside the art would claim we made it up. We were accused of making up Hua Fist until someone outside the system discovered the books.

Some of the forms I saw were so poor I was sure they were just made up the morning of the seminar - but then the books showed up. Some of the forms I thought were solid and for lack of a better explanation "felt" ancient haven't shown up in books yet. The 10 worst things I saw came straight out of books. Those Golden Leopards are pretty good for developing rapid striking ability - but they can be a little weird - and they came out of a book.

Some of the Mantis we were shown is just awful - straight out of a book.

We will never know what he learned in Indonesia versus what he took from books here. However, lying under oath to protect a business arrangement that was built on lies to begin with says a lot about a person.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

One thing I would like to comment on; In Indonesia, it is commonly held that they have preserved the original Shaolin, especially the combat aspect, where it has been lost in China. At least, this is what they say there.

They don't necessarily care about the choreography of the form. It's all about application and usage there. So you have all of these Indonesian families, with Chinese arts in them. They have all their own forms, and may don't even have forms, just drills and such.

When they look at stuff, it's on an individual technique, by technique basis, combined with the stepping, angles of entry and how the defender responds and manages his opponent's structure. What the form looks like is irrelevant.

I have had the opportunity to compare the stuff I have from the DeThouars family Kuntao Silat, to the stuff Sal Canzonieri does. Technology wise, there is an uncanny and high degree of over lap. Since Sal is one of the more known authorities on Shaolin Kung Fu in the US, I was able to come to the conclusion that the Old School Shaolin is alive and well in Indonesian lineages, even if all the forms themselves are unique.

The Chinese arts, over all seem to be much more focused on maintaining the original 'Style of Expression', than anything. They identify the art by the curriculum, and the choreography of the forms in the curriculum. So someone looking at an Indonesian Kung Fu line, from a Chinese perspective is going to see all these new forms ans a completely made up fraudulent system.

An Indonesian on the other hand, because they are much more 'Zoomed in', and looking at the details much, much closer will not care about all the recently made up forms and instead see real Shaolin. After all, they make up and forget forms all the time over there. To them it is just the package, not the contents.

Just a thought, when people feel Sin The' made up routines somehow mean his Shaolin, is not Shaolin. You have to look closer. Look at the strategy of usage, the way the art steps to position itself, the angles it uses to enter in, how the art receives and redirects energy. You have to ask if it uses the same types of lever based takedowns as old Shaolin, as well as the same types of uprooting. You have to look at the types of body mechanics used. Are they common Shaolin Temple internal external body methods? or are they somehting else?

Then you also have to consider the fact that many, many schools from Shaolin have lost all or part of the above, so you need to look at Shaolin Do and ask if you can at least see the shadows of what WAS there at one time. This may be a clue to how much original training Sin The actually had.

If you look to other arts out of Indonesia (like the DeThouars stuff) that is well known for preserving Old School Shaolin skills, and you can clearly see these skills are lacking in SD, you may want to consider moving on to more complete transmissions in order to fill in the missing pieces.

[LaterthanNever]

"I've been frequenting these forums for years and understand all the criticisms (and agree with many of them)"

and you STILL study Shaolin-Do?

[Yao Sing]

I haven't seen a whole lot of SD but what I have seen even the techniques look shady. What I saw of the Mantis set was a form full of finger poking with mantis hands, something you rarely see in standard NPM.

What do other stylists see in the SD forms? Do the Bagua moves look like "real" Bagua?

Maybe I've only seen the made up sets and there's more traditional stuff that's rarely shown, I don't know.

[One student]

I say that's about right.

If you read the deposition he said he didn't want to appear "boastful" so he didn't tell us he invented some of the material. It seems to me that laying claim to being the Shaolin Grand Master is slightly more "boastful" than saying "Here are some developmental techniques I put together to help you get the point where I can teach you some more advanced ancient forms."

Obviously, some person invented all the forms all of us do in any art. I'm not sure Sin The' invented anything he taught. Why go through the effort of putting something together and memorizing it when you can pull from thousands of books?

Most of the time we saw something new people outside the art would claim we made it up. We were accused of making up Hua Fist until someone outside the system discovered the books.

Some of the forms I saw were so poor I was sure they were just made up the morning of the seminar - but then the books showed up. Some of the forms I thought were solid and for lack of a better explanation "felt" ancient haven't shown up in books yet. The 10 worst things I saw came straight out of books. Those Golden Leopards are pretty good for developing rapid striking ability - but they can be a little weird - and they came out of a book.

Some of the Mantis we were shown is just awful - straight out of a book.

We will never know what he learned in Indonesia versus what he took from books here. However, lying under oath to protect a business arrangement that was built on lies to begin with says a lot about a person.

I have often heard people refer to the "books" that people find with the material in them, but no one has ever shown me one, or told me where I can see it for myself. Can you (or anyone else) show me, refer me, or point me to a place, to see such books containing SD material?

[Leto]

One thing I would like to comment on; In Indonesia, it is commonly held that they have preserved the original Shaolin, especially the combat aspect, where it has been lost in China. At least, this is what they say there.

They don't necessarily care about the choreography of the form. It's all about application and usage there. So you have all of these Indonesian families, with Chinese arts in them. They have all their own forms, and may don't even have forms, just drills and such.

When they look at stuff, it's on an individual technique, by technique basis, combined with the stepping, angles of entry and how the defender responds and manages his opponent's structure. What the form looks like is irrelevant.

I have had the opportunity to compare the stuff I have from the DeThouars family Kuntao Silat, to the stuff Sal Canzonieri does. Technology wise, there is an uncanny and high degree of over lap. Since Sal is one of the more known authorities on Shaolin Kung Fu in the US, I was able to come to the conclusion that the Old School Shaolin is alive and well in Indonesian lineages, even if all the forms themselves are unique.

The Chinese arts, over all seem to be much more focused on maintaining the original 'Style of Expression', than anything. They identify the art by the curriculum, and the choreography of the forms in the curriculum. So someone looking at an Indonesian Kung Fu line, from a Chinese perspective is going to see all these new forms ans a completely made up fraudulent system.

An Indonesian on the other hand, because they are much more 'Zoomed in', and looking at the details much, much closer will not care about all the recently made up forms and instead see real Shaolin. After all, they make up and forget forms all the time over there. To them it is just the package, not the contents.

Just a thought, when people feel Sin The' made up routines somehow mean his Shaolin, is not Shaolin. You have to look closer. Look at the strategy of usage, the way the art steps to position itself, the angles it uses to enter in, how the art receives and redirects energy. You have to ask if it uses the same types of lever based takedowns as old Shaolin, as well as the same types of uprooting. You have to look at the types of body mechanics used. Are they common Shaolin Temple internal external body methods? or are they somehting else?

Then you also have to consider the fact that many, many schools from Shaolin have lost all or part of the above, so you need to look at Shaolin Do and ask if you can at least see the shadows of what WAS there at one time. This may be a clue to how much original training Sin The actually had.

If you look to other arts out of Indonesia (like the DeThouars stuff) that is well known for preserving Old School Shaolin skills, and you can clearly see these skills are lacking in SD, you may want to consider moving on to more complete transmissions in order to fill in the missing pieces.

That is a good point. Some of the material clearly has sound principles within it, it just has to be looked at from the right point of view and extracted. I am sure there is or was a core of actual shaolin based techniques that much of the material is based on, that's why I like it. But I am finding that my body method is changing the more I study traditional shaolin and internal arts, and that the way I perform the Indonesian or Sin The material is changing because of that. There are bad habits formed here, where they tend to miss the shifting stances and stay stationary while throwing several hand techniques. There was no clear method of power delivery taught, so everything looks like standing in a bow stance or horse stance and throwing your hands out there. That is why I fell back on Okinawan karate methods while learning this system, which are now evolving into more internal methods.

[Leto]

I have often heard people refer to the "books" that people find with the material in them, but no one has ever shown me one, or told me where I can see it for myself. Can you (or anyone else) show me, refer me, or point me to a place, to see such books containing SD material?

Shaolin Five Animals by Doc Fai Wong. Of course it was modified slightly and given some slightly different posture names, at least the way I was taught it. But it is the same form. We just altered the swinging arm movements in a few places, changing the rear arm to a more chambered position.

I saw on www.plumbpub.com a book on Secret Door Praying Mantis which teaches Beng Bu Quan and a two person Beng Bu Quan paired form. I would like to get this book someday and see if it is what was taught at our "yin yang mantis" festival where we learned a secret door mantis form and paired set. The secret door mantis form taught does suspiciously look like beng bu forms I have seen, but I don't know enough mantis to tell.

I would look to places like plumbpub.com, Chinese language publications, for many of the books. I'm sure these two forms are not the only ones, it
s just that the materials may no longer be available, or might be very hard to find. Who knows what you can get in bookshops in Hong Kong, or Bandung, or Taipei?

[Yao Sing]

During this big long thread I've heard SD guys say finding SD forms in other Shaolin books and videos proves SD is real Shaolin.

So if something taught in SD shows up in a book generally considered valid why is it considered to validate the SD material and not be evidence that SD forms came from books?

[RJ797]

During this big long thread I've heard SD guys say finding SD forms in other Shaolin books and videos proves SD is real Shaolin.

So if something taught in SD shows up in a book generally considered valid why is it considered to validate the SD material and not be evidence that SD forms came from books?

Kind of a chicken and egg question. Even though Sin The's transmission of the forms would indicate he was just pulling it from a book - it isn't proof it came out of a book. It could be that he just taught it poorly and had known it for years - but not likely.

Leto was right when he said "so everything looks like standing in a bow stance or horse stance and throwing your hands out there."

[Judge Pen]

1992. The vs Hamilton lawsuit. Hiang The produce in court all the original note he have from 1960's before he leave Indonesia. Every piece his brother claim to make up, Hiang have note to prove him wrong. The record are seal but Hiang go against his brother and stand for the true.

Do you are telling us that Sin The repeatedly lied under oath? And that the material at least has it's origins to Ie in Indonesia?

[Judge Pen]

I have often heard people refer to the "books" that people find with the material in them, but no one has ever shown me one, or told me where I can see it for myself. Can you (or anyone else) show me, refer me, or point me to a place, to see such books containing SD material?

Our Hsing Ie, Pa Kua and Tai Chi are all reproduced in books. As is our 5 animal form. I have not seen any reporduction of our lower belt material (which is what The claims to have a copyright on).

[kwaichang]

So if I won a fight while doing SD I guess I didnt really win since I was doing SD ??? Right ? KC:cool:

[David Jamieson]

So if I won a fight while doing SD I guess I didnt really win since I was doing SD ??? Right ? KC:cool:

Go win a fight first, then say what you like. That's how it is.

[kwaichang]

Must have worded it wrong, I did win many fights so I guess I really didnt LOL. KC:D

[bodhi warrior]

If you watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOi63m2nwbM

and can't tell it was made up in someone's living room while NCIS was on, you deserve to be duped.

Someone made a comment about the knee slapping. Slapping of the knees, elbows, is pretty common among indonesian kuntao systems.
Maybe in the end it is a kuntao system after all.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Someone made a comment about the knee slapping. Slapping of the knees, elbows, is pretty common among indonesian kuntao systems.
Maybe in the end it is a kuntao system after all.

That has been my suspicion all along actually. It may be a badly taught one, but I really do suspect that is what it is.

[One student]

Our Hsing Ie, Pa Kua and Tai Chi are all reproduced in books. As is our 5 animal form. I have not seen any reporduction of our lower belt material (which is what The claims to have a copyright on).

I have seen books on "basic" Yang Style Tai Chi, and the form is very similar, some books more than others. Also, I've been told there is a famous book with a form also very similar to our "Classical" Pa Kua. I've seen video from Asia of persons doing Hsing Ie, being the 5 fists and the 12 animals, also very similar to SD. I took a Hsing Ie seminar (non-SD) and it was only the 5 fists, and again was very similar to SD.

Which always made me ask: Did SD come from those, did those come from SD, or did they both originate from some other common source?

I guess one would hope that if it were "real" forms, of something that universal, the form done in one place would look something like the form done somewhere else, if it is all the same Style.

So, I've always wanted to see a book, in print before GMS taught the material, with the material or something so close too it that it had to have common sources or one come from the other -- and something that is not so universal as to be less likely to be material actually taught by common schools (in other words, that the author learned it the same way GMS did, in the heirarchy at least).

Of course, seeing it in a book does not mean it came from the book, but it does raise a good question.

[bodhi warrior]

I have seen books on "basic" Yang Style Tai Chi, and the form is very similar, some books more than others. Also, I've been told there is a famous book with a form also very similar to our "Classical" Pa Kua. I've seen video from Asia of persons doing Hsing Ie, being the 5 fists and the 12 animals, also very similar to SD. I took a Hsing Ie seminar (non-SD) and it was only the 5 fists, and again was very similar to SD.

Which always made me ask: Did SD come from those, did those come from SD, or did they both originate from some other common source?

I guess one would hope that if it were "real" forms, of something that universal, the form done in one place would look something like the form done somewhere else, if it is all the same Style.


So, I've always wanted to see a book, in print before GMS taught the material, with the material or something so close too it that it had to have common sources or one come from the other -- and something that is not so universal as to be less likely to be material actually taught by common schools (in other words, that the author learned it the same way GMS did, in the heirarchy at least).

Of course, seeing it in a book does not mean it came from the book, but it does raise a good question.

Our "classical" pa kua is Jiang Rongqiao's original form. His book was originally published in 1963. There are a couple of translations available.

[Leto]

I have seen books on "basic" Yang Style Tai Chi, and the form is very similar, some books more than others. Also, I've been told there is a famous book with a form also very similar to our "Classical" Pa Kua. I've seen video from Asia of persons doing Hsing Ie, being the 5 fists and the 12 animals, also very similar to SD. I took a Hsing Ie seminar (non-SD) and it was only the 5 fists, and again was very similar to SD.

Which always made me ask: Did SD come from those, did those come from SD, or did they both originate from some other common source?

I guess one would hope that if it were "real" forms, of something that universal, the form done in one place would look something like the form done somewhere else, if it is all the same Style.

So, I've always wanted to see a book, in print before GMS taught the material, with the material or something so close too it that it had to have common sources or one come from the other -- and something that is not so universal as to be less likely to be material actually taught by common schools (in other words, that the author learned it the same way GMS did, in the heirarchy at least).

Of course, seeing it in a book does not mean it came from the book, but it does raise a good question.

We've been over this many times.
This is what I think is crazy. Long time students don't even know where the forms they have learned came from, or if there are any other styles or schools which practice them. I didn't either, when I first started, but a little research and talking to people revealed more facts.
Jiang Rong Qiao's book is titled "Baguazhang Lian Xi Fa". It includes the "rules of bagua", which in our CSC manual were broken down into 64 rules. It has been quite helpful to me in correcting some of the movements I was taught incorrectly.

The eight animal form I have only been able to find taught by Jerry Alan Johnson on his old video instruction series from the 80's, of which clips are available on youtube and elsewhere. Based on the way he teaches the Jiang Rong Qiao form, I would say he didn't get it from Sin The. There is a possibility Sin The got something from him, though.

The Yang style taijiquan form, which out east you guys call the 64, is Cheng Man Ching's 37 posture form, an abbreviated version of the classical Yang style form of Yang Cheng Fu. It is published in a book called "Master Cheng's New Method of Taichi Ch'uan Self-Cultivation", and probably elsewhere as well. The 24 posture form we learned is the standard 24 posture simplified tai chi form taught everywhere, sometimes called the Beijing form. It is also based on movements from the classical Yang style form of Yang Cheng Fu (not combined styles, as I was told when learning it, that is a different form). I am sure that has been published in numerous forms by numerous people since it was invented in the 1950's.
I don't know where the Chen 83 posture is published, because I never got a chance to take that seminar and actually see the form.
Most Xingyiquan is very similar, across school and styles, especially the five elements. The animals have a bit more variety. I am not sure which branch of xingyiquan ours is supposed to be, but it seems most likely Hebei branch. It is definately not Henan/Xinyi LiuHe quan. I've been learning a lot about xingyi and bagua from watching Luo Jinhua of Sha Guozheng's style, who was a student of Jiang Rongqiao.

I also have Doc Fai Wong's Shaolin Five Animal book and video. It is the same form taught by Sin The. The way I learned it from Soards, some of the movements which make it obvious that it is from a Choy Li Fut lineage were altered (the rear arm swinging). As this particular form I don't think anyone has seen anywhere except from Lau Bun's Hung Sing Choy Li Fut, I think it's pretty clear that is where Sin The got it. The book was published in 1988. When did Sin The start teaching it?

Yes, Sin The could have learned these styles actual people, as they are all pretty common. Given that he came to the US in 1963, there is no way he learned the tai chi or bagua before then, as the teachers of the forms we use were still alive and living in Taiwan and China respectively. It is possible he learned xingyi as a boy, but I doubt it, given the style of the material he started out teaching, which uses no xingyi mechanics. At best, they were learned from colleagues or seminars or private lessons, and he never told anyone who his actual teachers were. Maybe some people feel that it isn't important that he do so, that it doesn't matter where anything came from, as long as you "win the fight". But at the very least, no one should be advertising or talking as though everything they teach is an ancient tradition direct from the shaolin temple. They should be saying when asked that the basic material is from Sin The's interpretation of the material he learned as a boy (18 is still a boy). The rest is borrowed from various modern and traditional sources in order to introduce variety and create a diverse and fun curriculum.

[Leto]

Someone made a comment about the knee slapping. Slapping of the knees, elbows, is pretty common among indonesian kuntao systems.
Maybe in the end it is a kuntao system after all.

The black tigers, at least the wounded tiger, also give me an Indonesia/Sundanese feel as well. The cleary have Chinese movements in there, but there is a flair which I also note in watching Silat Cimande performances. I could just be seeing ghosts. I also see northern shaolin in shorin ryu karate, and most everyone thinks that is crazy, too.

[bodhi warrior]

I agree. There are moves that have a distinct Silat feel.
On a side note. I've seen Master Hiang perform the fire whip in public. And even though he's older now he's still quite good. It's my opinion he definetly received training from teachers.

[kwaichang]

It is thought that GMT was the Master of the Golden Snake and minor in other less prevalent forms. The others added later from Books , Videos etc. Many of the old Kung Fu films talk of books from styles and how special they were. I assume many Sifu write down their forms and drawings etc, even Bruce Lee did it. But that does not forgive the Shaolin Thing going on and Lying about it. I enjoy many of the forms and training and will continue with some changes. The Hua , the Tiger Crane The Pa Kua , etc. Well anyway, I feel when he came over all he had to teach was GS and his brother the Tai Pang and one guy in Indonesia was taught the 8 Immortals and so on until all Master Ie had was passed on. Thats what I feel is the way all this started. KC:o

[RJ797]

The SD Chen Tai Chi form is the 83 Move New Frame form. When Chen Xiaoxing saw it performed on the 1998 China Trip he told Sin The' it was a 17th Generation form.

[MasterKiller]

I feel when he came over all he had to teach was GS

Except no one has learned Golden Snake, right?

[David Jamieson]

Old Man,
This is something I have heard before from good sources and I believe to be true. Can you tell us more of the history and the ties to Shaolin?

If it was a legal proceeding then there is a transcript available.
Why not just ask for that? Boom done. no argument about it.

and, why would one say one thing in court and the other say another?
That would put them both in a position to be charged and convicted of perjury.

[Judge Pen]

If it was a legal proceeding then there is a transcript available.
Why not just ask for that? Boom done. no argument about it.

and, why would one say one thing in court and the other say another?
That would put them both in a position to be charged and convicted of perjury.

Not necessarily. If it were in State Court, the lawyers are responsible for the record and they are often destroyed following the expiration of the appeals period. And hardly anyone is charged with perjury (unless you are testifying in front of a Federal Grand Jury on Congress). Finally someone referenced that the settlement was confidential and the matter was placed under seal. If that were true, none of this is available to the public now.

[Judge Pen]

Except no one has learned Golden Snake, right?

I wouldn't say that. No one is supposed to talk about learning Golden Snake, but I would wager it is being taught to his elder students that are physically capable of learning the material.

[kwaichang]

That is true and is being taught , it is probably the real deal but now who knows right ? I think if any thing that is all he has that may be legit. KC

[tattooedmonk]

We've been over this many times.
This is what I think is crazy. Long time students don't even know where the forms they have learned came from, or if there are any other styles or schools which practice them. I didn't either, when I first started, but a little research and talking to people revealed more facts.
Jiang Rong Qiao's book is titled "Baguazhang Lian Xi Fa". It includes the "rules of bagua", which in our CSC manual were broken down into 64 rules. It has been quite helpful to me in correcting some of the movements I was taught incorrectly.

The eight animal form I have only been able to find taught by Jerry Alan Johnson on his old video instruction series from the 80's, of which clips are available on youtube and elsewhere. Based on the way he teaches the Jiang Rong Qiao form, I would say he didn't get it from Sin The. There is a possibility Sin The got something from him, though.

The Yang style taijiquan form, which out east you guys call the 64, is Cheng Man Ching's 37 posture form, an abbreviated version of the classical Yang style form of Yang Cheng Fu. It is published in a book called "Master Cheng's New Method of Taichi Ch'uan Self-Cultivation", and probably elsewhere as well. The 24 posture form we learned is the standard 24 posture simplified tai chi form taught everywhere, sometimes called the Beijing form. It is also based on movements from the classical Yang style form of Yang Cheng Fu (not combined styles, as I was told when learning it, that is a different form). I am sure that has been published in numerous forms by numerous people since it was invented in the 1950's.
I don't know where the Chen 83 posture is published, because I never got a chance to take that seminar and actually see the form.
Most Xingyiquan is very similar, across school and styles, especially the five elements. The animals have a bit more variety. I am not sure which branch of xingyiquan ours is supposed to be, but it seems most likely Hebei branch. It is definately not Henan/Xinyi LiuHe quan. I've been learning a lot about xingyi and bagua from watching Luo Jinhua of Sha Guozheng's style, who was a student of Jiang Rongqiao.

I also have Doc Fai Wong's Shaolin Five Animal book and video. It is the same form taught by Sin The. The way I learned it from Soards, some of the movements which make it obvious that it is from a Choy Li Fut lineage were altered (the rear arm swinging). As this particular form I don't think anyone has seen anywhere except from Lau Bun's Hung Sing Choy Li Fut, I think it's pretty clear that is where Sin The got it. The book was published in 1988. When did Sin The start teaching it?

Yes, Sin The could have learned these styles actual people, as they are all pretty common. Given that he came to the US in 1963, there is no way he learned the tai chi or bagua before then, as the teachers of the forms we use were still alive and living in Taiwan and China respectively. It is possible he learned xingyi as a boy, but I doubt it, given the style of the material he started out teaching, which uses no xingyi mechanics. At best, they were learned from colleagues or seminars or private lessons, and he never told anyone who his actual teachers were. Maybe some people feel that it isn't important that he do so, that it doesn't matter where anything came from, as long as you "win the fight". But at the very least, no one should be advertising or talking as though everything they teach is an ancient tradition direct from the shaolin temple. They should be saying when asked that the basic material is from Sin The's interpretation of the material he learned as a boy (18 is still a boy). The rest is borrowed from various modern and traditional sources in order to introduce variety and create a diverse and fun curriculum.I agree with a great deal of this...:)

The shaolin 5 animal form, wavy arms were probably added when it was learned by Lau Bun seeing as it is a Shaolin form and not CLF. Not failing to mention that in Sin The's version, the moves are more accurately labeled with the pictures/ moves in the form.

I would say a great deal of the material in question here is from Cai Long Yun ( 24 tai chi.. the Huas... Drunken....and Joseph Crandel's translations or similar sources. ;)

quite frankly it doesnt make any difference to me. I am glad SD introduced me to so many arts ....!

[tattooedmonk]

I know the Golden Snake style.... its hidden in my pants!!:eek::D I used it last night, its the deadliest!!!:D

[tattooedmonk]

really?


really?!?

c'mon guys, when r u gonna learn? BTW Dig the links.

[Leto]

I agree with a great deal of this...:)

The shaolin 5 animal form, wavy arms were probably added when it was learned by Lau Bun seeing as it is a Shaolin form and not CLF. Not failing to mention that in Sin The's version, the moves are more accurately labeled with the pictures/ moves in the form.

I would say a great deal of the material in question here is from Cai Long Yun ( 24 tai chi.. the Huas... Drunken....and Joseph Crandel's translations or similar sources. ;)

quite frankly it doesnt make any difference to me. I am glad SD introduced me to so many arts ....!

That is true about the five animal form, but the posture naming could still have been added after the book by The. Until we find some other source for this shaolin form besides Lau Bun, there will always be this doubt based on the questionable integrity revealed. It is possible that this particular shaolin form was known by Ie Chang Ming or someone else in Bandung as well as Lau Bun's teacher's wife, and it just so happens that we have one of only two known variations of it. If we went back to China and did lots of research maybe someone could turn up another source for it, or reveal where Lau Bun's teacher's wife learned it. It is also possible that Lau Bun's story was made up as well, and he invented the form.

I am glad SD introduced me to so many styles as well. I am not regretful or resentful of any of my experiences, I just think I would not do things the same were it me in the driver's seat.

[tattooedmonk]

That is true about the five animal form, but the posture naming could still have been added after the book by The. Until we find some other source for this shaolin form besides Lau Bun, there will always be this doubt based on the questionable integrity revealed. It is possible that this particular shaolin form was known by Ie Chang Ming or someone else in Bandung as well as Lau Bun's teacher's wife, and it just so happens that we have one of only two known variations of it. If we went back to China and did lots of research maybe someone could turn up another source for it, or reveal where Lau Bun's teacher's wife learned it. It is also possible that Lau Bun's story was made up as well, and he invented the form.

I am glad SD introduced me to so many styles as well. I am not regretful or resentful of any of my experiences, I just think I would not do things the same were it me in the driver's seat. agreed. Its a great form in my opinion either way.:D I have researched the are classical postures/ names are right on.... just saying. DFW 's are slightly off , in my opinion.

[One student]

We've been over this many times.
This is what I think is crazy. Long time students don't even know where the forms they have learned came from, or if there are any other styles or schools which practice them. I didn't either, when I first started, but a little research and talking to people revealed more facts.
Jiang Rong Qiao's book is titled "Baguazhang Lian Xi Fa". It includes the "rules of bagua", which in our CSC manual were broken down into 64 rules. It has been quite helpful to me in correcting some of the movements I was taught incorrectly.

The eight animal form I have only been able to find taught by Jerry Alan Johnson on his old video instruction series from the 80's, of which clips are available on youtube and elsewhere. Based on the way he teaches the Jiang Rong Qiao form, I would say he didn't get it from Sin The. There is a possibility Sin The got something from him, though.

The Yang style taijiquan form, which out east you guys call the 64, is Cheng Man Ching's 37 posture form, an abbreviated version of the classical Yang style form of Yang Cheng Fu. It is published in a book called "Master Cheng's New Method of Taichi Ch'uan Self-Cultivation", and probably elsewhere as well. The 24 posture form we learned is the standard 24 posture simplified tai chi form taught everywhere, sometimes called the Beijing form. It is also based on movements from the classical Yang style form of Yang Cheng Fu (not combined styles, as I was told when learning it, that is a different form). I am sure that has been published in numerous forms by numerous people since it was invented in the 1950's.
I don't know where the Chen 83 posture is published, because I never got a chance to take that seminar and actually see the form.
Most Xingyiquan is very similar, across school and styles, especially the five elements. The animals have a bit more variety. I am not sure which branch of xingyiquan ours is supposed to be, but it seems most likely Hebei branch. It is definately not Henan/Xinyi LiuHe quan. I've been learning a lot about xingyi and bagua from watching Luo Jinhua of Sha Guozheng's style, who was a student of Jiang Rongqiao.

I also have Doc Fai Wong's Shaolin Five Animal book and video. It is the same form taught by Sin The. The way I learned it from Soards, some of the movements which make it obvious that it is from a Choy Li Fut lineage were altered (the rear arm swinging). As this particular form I don't think anyone has seen anywhere except from Lau Bun's Hung Sing Choy Li Fut, I think it's pretty clear that is where Sin The got it. The book was published in 1988. When did Sin The start teaching it?

Yes, Sin The could have learned these styles actual people, as they are all pretty common. Given that he came to the US in 1963, there is no way he learned the tai chi or bagua before then, as the teachers of the forms we use were still alive and living in Taiwan and China respectively. It is possible he learned xingyi as a boy, but I doubt it, given the style of the material he started out teaching, which uses no xingyi mechanics. At best, they were learned from colleagues or seminars or private lessons, and he never told anyone who his actual teachers were. Maybe some people feel that it isn't important that he do so, that it doesn't matter where anything came from, as long as you "win the fight". But at the very least, no one should be advertising or talking as though everything they teach is an ancient tradition direct from the shaolin temple. They should be saying when asked that the basic material is from Sin The's interpretation of the material he learned as a boy (18 is still a boy). The rest is borrowed from various modern and traditional sources in order to introduce variety and create a diverse and fun curriculum.

I thought I've seen a list of the names of the actual teachers and their areas of expertise at GGM Ie's school. I think its on this very thread.

I've heard of JRQ's book on Ba Gua, I keep saying someday I'm going to get it.

And the Tai Chi form, in one verison or another, I've seen in several books, different authors, sometimes with only slight variations.

But other than the handful of items Leto provides sources for, that leaves, of the hundreds of forms he's taught out over nearly 50 years, a whole lot unaccounted for.

He used to talk about Liu Hsing (The Meteor Fist) back in the 60's. I know people who have researched even the name, and found nothing other than very old references in very old books to a "Shooting Star" system. Has anyone ever seen any printed text on "10,000 Lotus Blooming," which he also talked about in the 60's? And then to present the material decades later, I find it hard to believe he went out and found it somewhere, its too varied, too detailed, too different, like much of the other very exotic and rare forms he's taught. I am open to the idea that he got some of his material other than from his original school, but I'm doubtful of just making up, or finding in a book, or getting from a seminar or teacher no one else attended, no one else has, among the many followers of this thread, if not the others dedicated to debunking SD.

The question for the SD students (or at least a question) regarding teaching/showing material he's learned somewhere else other than GGM Ie's school, whether he got it from a seminar or a book, setting aside for a minute misstatements regarding either the origin (it could still be Shaolin even if he got it from a book or seminar), or where/how he got it, is: Whether getting it from someone who knows more about martial arts than they do, and who wouldn't be able to get it at all any other way, is worse than not getting it at all?

Much of the material I've gotten, I've made more of while outside of the class than in class just learning movements.

And where are these people who's material he is allegedly passing off as his own? You think they wouldn't be concerned? There are laws against passing off a product as something it isn't or from a source it is not actually from ("knockoffs"). Or are they just not concerned enough to do anything about it.

Is it like the people who specifically give the seminars, or sell the books, so that other people can go out and teach it themselves?

But Leto raises all good points and good questions. One would not be honest, if in fact it was all learned recently and then just passed on, if it did not make the SD student at least very sad over the uncertainty, or at least omission of the source, if that's what it is. Then again, "I have been a fool for lesser things."

[Judge Pen]

really?


really?!?

c'mon guys, when r u gonna learn?

I'm not speaking to Golden Snake as a legitimate style but I know it is being taught to some of the higher-ups in SD.

[MasterKiller]

I did not mean that these good sources had any special knowledge of the case; in fact I have no idea where they got their information. By good sources I simply meant that I knew them well and trusted them to be truthful. That's how all this got started. People just kept telling the same stories and eventually it all became "common" knowledge.

It wasn't so long ago that everyone in SD thought there was a statue of Sin The' at Shaolin Temple, afterall. And I mean high level guys were saying this and arguing over it. We all know how that turned out...

[tattooedmonk]

WOOOHOOO! :D Its alive!!

[Lucas]

http://webii.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/young_frankenstein.jpg

[Judge Pen]

Bill Leonard's comments as posted on the SDA facebook page:

http://goo.gl/EYDo8

[Golden Tiger]

Hey everyone, long time no see! So, what have I missed?:cool:

[Yao Sing]

Hey everyone, long time no see! So, what have I missed?:cool:

A couple hundred pages similar to the previous couple hundred pages.

Until now.

[bodhi warrior]

Hey everyone, long time no see! So, what have I missed?:cool:

Your gonna want to read the deposition first.

[Yao Sing]

As if he doesn't already know. :rolleyes:

[tattooedmonk]

http://webii.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/young_frankenstein.jpgI know, right? haha:D

[Lucas]

I'm a pretty subtle guy.

[One student]

Bill Leonard's comments as posted on the SDA facebook page:

http://goo.gl/EYDo8

What EML says seems to make sense to me. Can anyone, with personal (not hearsay) knowledge dispute what EML says was said back then -- which others have said here (that the circumstances were well known then and just not re-discussed over the years)?

Doesn't change the "book source" discussion, but it appears credible what EML says, confirming what others have suggested here, as to the origination of the lower belt material.

[Yao Sing]

Guess you didn't see my post in the other thread where I posed a few questions nobody cared to answer. And no, what ge wrote doesn't make sense.

Higher ups attempting to salvage their piece of the kingdom is understandable though.

[bodhi warrior]

What EML says seems to make sense to me. Can anyone, with personal (not hearsay) knowledge dispute what EML says was said back then -- which others have said here (that the circumstances were well known then and just not re-discussed over the years)?

Doesn't change the "book source" discussion, but it appears credible what EML says, confirming what others have suggested here, as to the origination of the lower belt material.

I have a DVD of Sin The' talking about the history of some of our forms. He states that our short forms come from Jie Shou Fu who learned them from a master he dueled to a draw. In his deposition he states he created them from scratch. So Sin either lied to bill or he lied in the book and on the DVD.

[RJ797]

I have a DVD of Sin The' talking about the history of some of our forms. He states that our short forms come from Jie Shou Fu who learned them from a master he dueled to a draw. In his deposition he states he created them from scratch. So Sin either lied to bill or he lied in the book and on the DVD.

and that sums it all up perfectly.

[bodhi warrior]

Doc fai wong's 5 animal book was published in 1988. In a seminar Bill Leonard stated he was taught it in 1990. Same exact form.
Cai longyun published books on hua quan covering 4 roads and a 2 man set. But i think his hua system covers 12 roads. Sin teaches 4 roads and a two man set.
I think it's a safe bet Sin plagerized these forms from the books.

[One student]

Bill Leonard's comments as posted on the SDA facebook page:

http://goo.gl/EYDo8


The letter is also posted on the SDA website, and the Sin The Lexington school website, for anyone to see and read.

And for what its worth, from GMT's own website:

"Shaolin Do is a massive collection of styles which descended from the Shaolin Temple system in China, passed down from master to student and from generation to generation." (Emphasis added by me)

Don't think that is inconsistent with what has been said, or what EML said, as to each form not having been claimed to be an exact Temple form -- "descended from" is not "the same as" or "the originals taught at".

For what its worth.

[One student]

I have a DVD of Sin The' talking about the history of some of our forms. He states that our short forms come from Jie Shou Fu who learned them from a master he dueled to a draw. In his deposition he states he created them from scratch. So Sin either lied to bill or he lied in the book and on the DVD.

The words out of his mouth are important -- both ways. I'd like to know the exact words on the DVD you refer to. Saying that forms "come from" someone or something, is not necessarily inconsistent with creating them. Stances, strikes, hand positions, blocks, all have to "come from" something, and creating them "from" something else is still creating them. I have drills and techniques that I "created," and all "come from" something else I learned. It may be splitting hairs, either way.

Unless of course he said (I don't know, I don't have his DVD's) "the 1-30 short forms from SD white to green belt are the exact ones, with no changes, that were those taught by JSF." Yes, that would be hard to reconcile with "I created them."

And there will be those who will find fault in whatever he says, and others who will defend whatever he says. Don't see that changing any time soon.

[themeecer]

What EML says seems to make sense to me. Can anyone, with personal (not hearsay) knowledge dispute what EML says was said back then -- which others have said here (that the circumstances were well known then and just not re-discussed over the years)?

Doesn't change the "book source" discussion, but it appears credible what EML says, confirming what others have suggested here, as to the origination of the lower belt material.

Instead of disputing it I will back it up. I have learned a few of the original 'short katas.' I was told back then that they were originally taught those and then GM Sin switched over to the current 30 short kata. These older short katas were much longer .. about the length of shorter long katas. I didn't know the reasons the new ones were added, but it makes sense now.

As I stated on our facebook page, I am glad we have an official word on this 'controversy.' I can go back to my training and let you all verbally duke it out.

By the way .. this was my yearly mandatory post in this monstrosity of a thread.

[shen ku]

meecer you have to do more then one or how will us people just a little to the west of you ever keep in touch,, cause you know we always forget about emailing....:)

[Leto]

Instead of disputing it I will back it up. I have learned a few of the original 'short katas.' I was told back then that they were originally taught those and then GM Sin switched over to the current 30 short kata. These older short katas were much longer .. about the length of shorter long katas. I didn't know the reasons the new ones were added, but it makes sense now.

As I stated on our facebook page, I am glad we have an official word on this 'controversy.' I can go back to my training and let you all verbally duke it out.

By the way .. this was my yearly mandatory post in this monstrosity of a thread.

The point is, if it was well known to all the senior students, why isn't that information taught to all students? Aren't they proud of how Sin The had created this wonderful system of forms for introducing people to shaolin martial arts? Why is all we ever hear about Ie Chang Ming and Su Kong Tai Jin, and the ancient shaolin monks? We don't even get told about the other Bandung teachers who supposedly contributed to the system, we had to find out about it in a round about way from brother Hiang's system and the internet. If everyone who studied back in the sixites and the people who went on the trip to Bandung all knew all this stuff, why isn't it common knowledge for all students? Why is there so much resistance and double talk? Why is the "history" section of the CSC manual full of legends and tall tales about Sin The and his lineage, instead of useful facts about the style's origin? Is it because the facts will show that it is impossible for Sin The to have learned much of the material he has taught (and continues to teach) from his teachers in Bandung? Would it sound so bad if they said that such and such a form was learned over a couple weeks while Sin The visited his family in Bandung one year? Or if he took a trip to Taiwan or Hong Kong and learned something new from an instructor there, and came back to teach it to his students? Of course, I don't know if that happened. But it sounds better than reading a book or watching a video, piecing together a form from the pictures and descriptions, and then teaching it to his students. Doesn't that possibility bother any of the long time students?
Keep training, of course. But honesty and personal intergrity has to mean something, especially in the teacher/student relationship. If that relationship is ruined, how can you continue to give obeisance to the "master" who won't tell the truth even about his own martial arts?

[Judge Pen]

I'll add this. Much like meecer's comment I was told that our 30 short form were a distillation of the original 108 Lohan which were simplified. That's ok if Sin The knew the original 108. But he said, [direct quote from page 46 and 47 of his deposition]

Q: Those 30 different kata were not something that you created yourself; correct?

A: Not correct. I created myself.

Q: Okay. Don't you in your book say that these 30 kata are part of a system of 108?

A: That is a legend that they have 108 short form, but nobody ever seen it.

Q: Okay. So you don't know how to do the 108 form?

A: That is correct.

Q: Okay. And of the 30 that you teach, those are part of the 108 form>

A: No. That's part I created.

Q: Okay. So it's not part of some ancient system, it's something you made up yourself?

A: Correct.

Q: So in your book when you say that it's part of the 108 form, ancient form, you're not telling the truth?

A: No, not telling the truth. But because legend has it that it's 108 form.

With all respect to Bill Leonard's letter, there's no squaring this testimony with what we were told. It's one thing to know the 108 form, and pick and choose ones to teach for structural and progressive purposes, but it's another to misrepresent the origins. Sin The did not say he took forms he knew and simplified them. He said he created forms, based upon legends, from whole cloth.

Now, he created the forms from his own knowledge and understanding of what he learned in Indonesia. And the forms do provide steady and progressive training of fundamental techniques that build upon one another and effectively train a beginner in martial arts. They have practical and effective applications behind them. I cannot fault the efficacy of the form and have to give some respect to Sin The as a martial artist and a teacher for creating these forms. But I cannot condone lying about its origins to protect what is a business investment.

[kwaichang]

I 1st learned 8 of the 30 Short forms in 1981 I was told then they were part of the 108, the teacher at the time was 2nd BB. KC Nuff said!

[themeecer]

meecer you have to do more then one or how will us people just a little to the west of you ever keep in touch,, cause you know we always forget about emailing....:)

Ah ha!! I finally figured out who another person is on here. Some people are so secretive about their identities on here. In fact some cowards make up new names so they can come on here and bash GM Sin. It is nice to see familiar faces .. er names.

New years resolution .. going to do better at keeping in touch. (I didn't mention what year I was going to make this resolution) Are you on facebook? For me that's been the best way to keep up with people.

[Old Noob]

What EML says seems to make sense to me. Can anyone, with personal (not hearsay) knowledge dispute what EML says was said back then -- which others have said here (that the circumstances were well known then and just not re-discussed over the years)?

Doesn't change the "book source" discussion, but it appears credible what EML says, confirming what others have suggested here, as to the origination of the lower belt material.

Stop believing what others tell you. Take the deposition transcript and then lay it beside the book that Sin The wrote with Jim Halladay and next to the information found on Sin The's own website. If you can find a logical way to make all the statements found in all three of those sources true, then you have a better analytical mind than I do. The simple fact is that this isn't something that wasn't discussed because it was well settled. It was misrepresented and affirmatively so.

I'm with JP; it doesn't effect the efficacy of the sytem, it just casts doubts on all claims as to its origins. I think the system is genious in the way it builds on itself and as a practical system. However, I think anyone who claims that there isn't some purposeful misrepresentation is either logically unsound or cultified.

[Yao Sing]

From what I've seen on video I'm still not convinced the moves are correct or valid. Previously on here I posted a link to a 2000 demo in Kentucky (the cane tonfa's) and I see moves ranging from total crap to recognizable but done incorrectly. Quite a few I'm hard pressed to find any possible application.

Example - after the double canes a black belt does a single broadsword set where he holds his hand up high and kicks it. Shows nice flexability but why is he kicking his hand? I know what he's supposed to be doing but that isn't what he's actually doing so my guess is he doesn't know the app but it looks impressive.

There's also a girl doing a set with some really wavy hand motions that looks more like dance moves than martial arts. There seems to be plenty to pick apart in that sampling of SD material.

To me there appears to be mostly fluff with a just few legit moves in these sets. Are these just performance sets?

[themeecer]

From what I've seen on video I'm still not convinced the moves are correct or valid. Previously on here I posted a link to a 2000 demo in Kentucky (the cane tonfa's) and I see moves ranging from total crap to recognizable but done incorrectly. Quite a few I'm hard pressed to find any posible application.

Example - after the double canes a black belt does a single broadsword set where he holds his hand up high and kicks it. Shows nice flexability but why is he kicking his hand? I know what he's supposed to be doing but that isn't what he's actually doing so my guess is he doesn't know the app but it looks impressive.

There's also a girl doing a set with some really wavy hand motions that looks more like dance moves than martial arts. There seems to be plenty to pick apart in that sampling of SD material.

To me there appears to be mostly fluff with a just few legit moves in these sets. Are these just performance sets?

Could you repost the link?

[Yao Sing]

The video is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foDXjaSyQMk).

I have a keen eye for this stuff because my own style (Wah Lum) does this alot, and I see students make the same high kick mistake. But I would think a Black Belt would know better.

I've also seen an SD Mantis form that's mostly just poking with mantis claws, something rarely found in traditional Northern Mantis.

[themeecer]

The video is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foDXjaSyQMk).

I have a keen eye for this stuff because my own style (Wah Lum) does this alot, and I see students make the same high kick mistake. But I would think a Black Belt would know better.

I've also seen an SD Mantis form that's mostly just poking with mantis claws, something rarely found in traditional Northern Mantis.

I believe that is what we call 'Second level broadsword.' I have not learned that one, so I can't comment on it. My curriculum doesn't contain this newer released material.

You state: There's also a girl doing a set with some really wavy hand motions that looks more like dance moves than martial arts

You may be referring to the gal doing our Black Tiger Flips The Body form. It's hard for me to comment on that one as well, it was done very differently than the way we teach. Some of that I can attribute to 'stylizing' it for the demo.

[sanjuro_ronin]

since they were all made up, does it matter anymore?

[themeecer]

since they were all made up, does it matter anymore?

They aren't all made up. You didn't read the deposition thoroughly. The bulk of the material is from Grandmaster Ie. Many made that assumption on the other thread Master Killer started. I assume they simply read what our critics were saying and didn't read the deposition themselves.

Correction: Everything we study is made up, the question is when.

[Yao Sing]

since they were all made up, does it matter anymore?

Well it matters in the sense that the current response is that the forms might be made up but the underlying material is solid. I disagree based on what I've seen so far.


whatever they are, they are painful to watch...

I just feel bad for the people who think they are seeing something great. And sometimes feel a little embarrassed for the performers who don't know how they look to the more knowledgeable viewers.

Like I said I see that sometimes in lower level students from my own style so maybe I'm more sensitive to it than others.


your grandmaster drives like a monkey in heat...:D:D:D

I've been with Sifu driving like that in the pouring rain down I-4. And he called me Iron Man for driving through the night back to the Temple from Knoxville after a long "grand opening" day while everyone else slept. Must be the Kung Fu. :D

[Yao Sing]

I think he drives by Qi, not eyes. :D

Anyhow, I just want to contribute to the discussion objectively. The human mind is really good at rationalizing things. Like with the hypnotist shows. Give them a silly action to do after they wake up and after they do it they will rationalize their silly action.

The SD are doing that now so I'm forcing a closer look. If I'm wrong the fine but it doesn't hurt to take the rose colored glasses off and look at it again.

[Lucas]

http://www.itsfunnylol.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/409285_337412992947351_118067068215279_1142823_107 7312629_n.jpg

[Judge Pen]

There is no martial application (at least that I will believe) to kicking your own hand. It is taught to us as beginers when we were first taught cresent kicks (smash kicks as my teachers called them) as a tool to focus the vector of the kick (and it makes a nice sound). I did it when I was a beginer but stopped doing it as I advanced.

[Yao Sing]

Sorry I didn't explain completely. It's not just kicking the hand, specifically kicking the hand with the high toe kick.

People like to put their hand really high then kick it trying to be impressive (and it usually works if you don't understand the app).

Anyhow you aren't kicking the hand, you're kicking the face. The hand is pulling the head down into the kick. Unfortunately you rarely see anyone pulling the head down and most can't explain what they're doing when asked.

This, I feel, is one reason why the fighting doesn't look like the forms. The forms aren't done correctly. There's no reason I can see for the moves to be completely different than how they are in the forms, except for variations due to opponent size etc.

But then I'm usually in the minority with how I see things. But it is one of my pet peeves.:)

Oh, and kicking the hand with a crescent can be applied the same way, pushing the head into the kick. Like an elbow smash to the head. You hit your elbow into your hand in the form. In a fight the head is in between the elbow and the hand. So you don't put your hand to the side and then hit it with your elbow in your form, they meet in the middle straight in front of you. Same when applying it.

[Yao Sing]

Not to be picking on you JP or putting you down (I know you can handle criticism) but you're an SD black belt and didn't know that app. The guy in the video I referenced had on a worn out black belt and appears (based on his performance) not to know that so how can I tell if SKT evens knows it?

Now whether you, or the guy in the vid is a good fighter or not is irrelevant since most CMA fighting doesn't consist of moves from the style. You don't need much more than a couple of blocks, couple of punches and kicks to be a good fighter.

[bodhi warrior]

My instructor trained in SD for over 20 years. He taught us to envision grabbing the head and smashing it into the foot. He also wanted us to think of it as a target.

[themeecer]

Anyhow you aren't kicking the hand, you're kicking the face. The hand is pulling the head down into the kick. Unfortunately you rarely see anyone pulling the head down and most can't explain what they're doing when asked.


Oh, and kicking the hand with a crescent can be applied the same way, pushing the head into the kick.

That is how we teach it. We use these in kicking drills as we walk across the floor.

[KungfuCasting]

http://www.itsfunnylol.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/409285_337412992947351_118067068215279_1142823_107 7312629_n.jpg

wooow dangerous picture whaha :D very cool!

I really did ready everything wrong :)

[Leto]

There is no martial application (at least that I will believe) to kicking your own hand. It is taught to us as beginers when we were first taught cresent kicks (smash kicks as my teachers called them) as a tool to focus the vector of the kick (and it makes a nice sound). I did it when I was a beginer but stopped doing it as I advanced.

I believe kicking your own hand evolved out of the type of application Yao Sing mentioned. The way it is performed in modern wushu is obviously not caring about any application, and has devolved into a display of flexibility. But in taijiquan, the hand which separates with the leg during the kicking techniques is a grab and hold, with the kick going into the ribs or lower body. I believe this is the same in traditional shaolin forms where you kick the hand, such as xiao hong quan. In my opinion, kicking head height in practice is just for flexibility and strength, application will mostly be mid-lower level kicks. It's always possible to pull someone's head down, with the hand and foot meeting in the middle. I was not taught this in SD/CSC, but picked it up from later instruction. As much as I did learn, and have the opportunity to work with partners and spar, there was also a lot of fundamental stuff I didn't learn from CSC. I am glad I had ten years of prior training going into it, I was able to superimpose the new training on the old to make something more effective than I would have had if I started in CSC with no prior experience.

[MasterKiller]

They aren't all made up. You didn't read the deposition thoroughly. The bulk of the material is from Grandmaster Ie. Many made that assumption on the other thread Master Killer started. I assume they simply read what our critics were saying and didn't read the deposition themselves.

Correction: Everything we study is made up, the question is when.



A Let me explain this. My material I cleared some and he had cleared some, too. But they are common bound material that is Shaolin Kung Fu. And so it is understood I teach my material and then Shaolin Kung Fu as well. As a matter of fact my material is around 50 something to 60 material, but Shaolin Kung Fu I taught over a hundred. So likewise, you know.

60 forms he admits to making up. How many do you know?

[Judge Pen]

Not to be picking on you JP or putting you down (I know you can handle criticism) but you're an SD black belt and didn't know that app. The guy in the video I referenced had on a worn out black belt and appears (based on his performance) not to know that so how can I tell if SKT evens knows it?

Now whether you, or the guy in the vid is a good fighter or not is irrelevant since most CMA fighting doesn't consist of moves from the style. You don't need much more than a couple of blocks, couple of punches and kicks to be a good fighter.

I've heard the explanation of pulling the head down to kick the head. Some of the more advanced forms I have learned, specifically the books of hua, have that application that are expressed in the form in a more realistic manner. But you were referencing the high kick to the hand which I took as different. If you're hand is still that high when the foot connects then either you are not doing a very good job of pulling the head down or you are fighting Yao Ming. As it is taught and usually performed in the beginner SD forms I see it as a training tool and not a viable application.

[Judge Pen]

On to your second point, which is more of a comment on fighting with all TMA or TCMA and not just SD, true you only need a handful of punches, blocks, kicks etc to be can effective fighter, but I believe that different forms broaden your ability to move, evade counter, etc., even if you are still employing the same techniques. By continuing to train your body and expand our movements you can use your fundamental techniques more effectively. At least that is my humble opinion.

[Yao Sing]

Well I was just pre-empting the argument that if you're a good fighter it doesn't matter that you do made up forms without knowing the apps. That seems to be the fall back when one can't counter the made up forms accusation. I believe that's already been said here or in the other thread.

I hate being so distrustfull but after I explained the app everyone comes out of the woodwork claiming that's how they learned/taught it and yet there's that video of an SD black belt doing the "I don't really know why I'm kicking this way but don't I look good" high kick hitting his hand.

I debated how long I should wait before providing the answser but when you said "There is no martial application (at least that I will believe) to kicking your own hand." I figured I made my point.

Now you may respond with "oh, I thought you meant an app for kicking the hand, not what is the app for what the performer in the video is doing" or something to that effect. I think that's a lame attemt to CYA. I was clearly talking about the performer not knowing the app for what he is doing.

So, any suggestions to why he's doing it wrong multiple times in that form? Maybe he's doing it on purpose because it's a public demo and doesn't want secret info going out for free.

Maybe you guys can point to a better representation of SD material?

[Leto]

Well I was just pre-empting the argument that if you're a good fighter it doesn't matter that you do made up forms without knowing the apps. That seems to be the fall back when one can't counter the made up forms accusation. I believe that's already been said here or in the other thread.

I hate being so distrustfull but after I explained the app everyone comes out of the woodwork claiming that's how they learned/taught it and yet there's that video of an SD black belt doing the "I don't really know why I'm kicking this way but don't I look good" high kick hitting his hand.

I debated how long I should wait before providing the answser but when you said "There is no martial application (at least that I will believe) to kicking your own hand." I figured I made my point.

Now you may respond with "oh, I thought you meant an app for kicking the hand, not what is the app for what the performer in the video is doing" or something to that effect. I think that's a lame attemt to CYA. I was clearly talking about the performer not knowing the app for what he is doing.

So, any suggestions to why he's doing it wrong multiple times in that form? Maybe he's doing it on purpose because it's a public demo and doesn't want secret info going out for free.

Maybe you guys can point to a better representation of SD material?

Haven't seen too many good demo's of SD material, online or in person. While I was in CSC, at big events and tests when people from all over were gathered together, I did see a couple people who caught my eye as good performers. I don't know that my performance is so good either, though it would be better now than it was five or six years ago, the last time I video'd myself. Of course, my performance wouldn't be representative of what is taught in SD/CSC either. Even while I was still in CSC I did things a bit differently than my teacher taught, just because my fundamentals were different. I was never corrected or asked to alter anything, so I just kept doing what felt right, even if it meant moving differently from my teacher and everyone else.

[Judge Pen]

Well I was just pre-empting the argument that if you're a good fighter it doesn't matter that you do made up forms without knowing the apps. That seems to be the fall back when one can't counter the made up forms accusation. I believe that's already been said here or in the other thread.

I hate being so distrustfull but after I explained the app everyone comes out of the woodwork claiming that's how they learned/taught it and yet there's that video of an SD black belt doing the "I don't really know why I'm kicking this way but don't I look good" high kick hitting his hand.

I debated how long I should wait before providing the answser but when you said "There is no martial application (at least that I will believe) to kicking your own hand." I figured I made my point.

Now you may respond with "oh, I thought you meant an app for kicking the hand, not what is the app for what the performer in the video is doing" or something to that effect. I think that's a lame attemt to CYA. I was clearly talking about the performer not knowing the app for what he is doing.

So, any suggestions to why he's doing it wrong multiple times in that form? Maybe he's doing it on purpose because it's a public demo and doesn't want secret info going out for free.

Maybe you guys can point to a better representation of SD material?

Not CYA. I still don't believe there is a valid marial application to kicking your hand in that manner (which is the context we discussed and how I tried to phrase my discussion--very poorly apparently). I didn't say that we were not told that you grab the head and bring the head to your foot, I just don't think it is expressed properly by the performer or in the begining SD forms where it is taught that way. I do not by that application when the movement doesn't bring the hand to the foot to represent the pulling that would be required.

Why does he do it that way in the form? I don't know. Maybe he doesn't know (and I understand your point that he should because his belt implies he has been training a while. More likely he likes the nice sound it makes and thinks it looks cool for performance reasons. I can only speak for me. I've been told many applications for forms that I didn't buy personally.

[Judge Pen]

If you're looking for good demos of forms, then I would look for material performed by Master Garry Mullins. He is a good forms person in SD. I have videos of him, but as he was one of my former teachers I don't feel right about putting up videos of him on the internet withnout his permission. I think there are some clips out there on youtube, but not many. I've put videos of myself out there before, but I would never hold myself out to be good a forms performance.

[bodhi warrior]

If you're looking for good demos of forms, then I would look for material performed by Master Garry Mullins. He is a good forms person in SD. I have videos of him, but as he was one of my former teachers I don't feel right about putting up videos of him on the internet withnout his permission. I think there are some clips out there on youtube, but not many. I've put videos of myself out there before, but I would never hold myself out to be good a forms performance.


I've seen videos of master Mullins. And I agree he is very good at performing material. And he looks like a tough mofo too.

[RJ797]

There is no doubt Garry Mullins and his sons are among - if not the very best kung fu people in Shaolin Do. There are some videos out there of him - including later in the same video everyone has been talking about with the wavy arm girl and the hand slapping the foot.

However, it is pointless to have a discussion with someone who is putting himself forth as an expert because he trains in Wah Lum without some reference of their skill. Is there a place we can see a current video of Yao Sing performing?

and yes Garry Mullins is a bad mofo. He and Frank Mingione are the two best 8th Degrees.

Mike Reid down in Atlanta has been around a long time and haven't heard of anyone willing to test their fighting skills against him yet. Why is that?

[shen ku]

well frank is the one they are talking about in the video of hm doing the sword form and kicking is foot/

as for anytime the hand hits the foot or elbow or hand, this is not always smashing the head, i have some very interesting spins of how to apply these things but it is not as easy to type as it is to show?? maybe someday i"ll make it down to knoxville and share with JP, its just different but very usefull for me

[themeecer]

I agree with the assessment of Master Mullins' skill. I would also recommend viewing of my teacher, Master Bob Green. He captures the dynamic animal fighting spirit in his forms that is missing from a lot of these demos. I strive to mimic him in my forms. One of the biggest compliments was to have someone come up after I did a form and ask me if I was Master Green's student. You can tell both of these men ate a lot of bitter.

[kwaichang]

Is the form u speak of, the high kick is near the end, the application for that is to generate proper body dynamics for a lower kick such as u have mentioned ie: pulling the head down to the kick, another example is the leg sweep, we were told to sweep as high as you can after contacting the ankle, but that is used to generate power much like big circle evolves into small circle for power in that movement that is why moves are exagerated in this form and other forms as well and other systems as well, sometimes it is used as a Clearing move as well much like a cresent kick can wrap a side or hook kick if timed properly. KC

[bodhi warrior]

I agree with the assessment of Master Mullins' skill. I would also recommend viewing of my teacher, Master Bob Green. He captures the dynamic animal fighting spirit in his forms that is missing from a lot of these demos. I strive to mimic him in my forms. One of the biggest compliments was to have someone come up after I did a form and ask me if I was Master Green's student. You can tell both of these men ate a lot of bitter.

Where can we find footage of master green. I've heard good things about him also.

[Golden Tiger]

The person in the video is Master Frank and I would argue that he is an excellent performer, martial artist, fighter and a pretty good guy. The vid you saw was at a demo and usually in demo's, the moves are more flashy, the kicks a lot higher. He has incredible flexability and was more than likely using that to perform to the crowd (which are generally the family and friends of students who could care less about applications or martial arts for that matter).

And just to CMyA, Yao Sing, I read your question and didnt think it needed an answer to the application. Even in the fake phony SD, that application is shown starting at yellow belt, the one right after white mind you. But if you want to get picky, driving the kick up through RN 24 while using an open palm to strike down through DU 20 and hope they meet somewhere in the middle would be the proper application to that move.

[Judge Pen]

was more than likely using that to perform to the crowd.

That sounded familiar. I'm not a big fan of pressure point techniques, so I did not consider that application. To me it is either pulling a body part to the hand (which the form should show that hand moving toward the leg, imo) or done to show focus or to make a nice pretty sound for demonstration purposes.

[MasterKiller]

Anyhow you aren't kicking the hand, you're kicking the face. The hand is pulling the head down into the kick. Unfortunately you rarely see anyone pulling the head down and most can't explain what they're doing when asked.

That's ridiculous. Your legs are longer than your arms, so there is no way anyone is grabbing a head and straight kicking someone in the face, not to mention it's more practical to throw knees at that distance, anyway.

[kwaichang]

Shin kick to the head instead. KC same technique.

[Drake]

Shin kick to the head instead. KC same technique.

I would have to disagree. It's either a kick or a knee. It's not the same.

[tattooedmonk]

The person in the video is Master Frank and I would argue that he is an excellent performer, martial artist, fighter and a pretty good guy. The vid you saw was at a demo and usually in demo's, the moves are more flashy, the kicks a lot higher. He has incredible flexability and was more than likely using that to perform to the crowd (which are generally the family and friends of students who could care less about applications or martial arts for that matter).

And just to CMyA, Yao Sing, I read your question and didnt think it needed an answer to the application. Even in the fake phony SD, that application is shown starting at yellow belt, the one right after white mind you. But if you want to get picky, driving the kick up through RN 24 while using an open palm to strike down through DU 20 and hope they meet somewhere in the middle would be the proper application to that move.I dont know him personally, but I do know of SMFM's skills ...performance is performance. it is as you say.

Nice point combo, I like it.

Question, Are you doing the kick with K1 and palm strike with the hollow of the palm (P8) or more with the pisiform near H7-SI 5??:D

[Yao Sing]

For the record I've seen plenty of good performers that are lousy "technicians". Just putting on an impressive looking show doesn't mean youre doing the moves right, understanding the moves, or have the ability to apply the moves. It just means you're a good performer.

As for me I'm a lousy performer and there is video of me out there and I have posted links. I've also been guilty in the past of some of the things I rail against now. I've done moves incorrectly in public shows not really understanding the moves.

Here's me at an old Chinese New Year show (http://www.myspace.com/protalent/videos/chinese-new-year/2411432).

And here's a school grand opening (http://www.myspace.com/protalent/videos/tampa-grand-opening/2411467).

I do my worst when performing. Want me to pick these apart? I'm not doing so good with the "kick the hand" myself in the second clip. See the open palm at the end of the first run? That's supposed to be a Hui Yin strike. Ever seen anyone with their Hui Yin cavity that high? Am I fighting Semmy Schiltz? I see students do that wrong all the time like they're hitting some undertermined area with a knife hand. I have much better understanding than I did back then. That second clip is about when I started moving away from performance fu, partly because I stink in front of a crowd plus I'm more concerned with how it all works. Unfortunately for me Wah Lum just kept going more performance oriented. There was even a divide at the Temple between the Demo Team and the senior students where Mimi taught the demo team performance forms while we learned the traditional stuff.

I could just say it all looks fake but I'm at least trying to pin down specifics to keep some good dialog going. That hand kick is a bit of a pet peeve of mine and it's at the beginning of the tape so it caught my eye.

And Masterkiller, it is possible to hold the head and kick it simultanously. While knees might be easier it doesn't make the kick impossible. WL also does a line drill that consist of a heel kick and palm strike hitting the same distance. I've even kicked the back of my hand doing that drill so I have no problem hitting the same target with both hand and foot. I know you've gone all MMA these days and while it may not be the best choice in a fight it's still an option.

[tattooedmonk]

I would have to disagree. It's either a kick or a knee. It's not the same.It is the same range of motion ,engaging the same muscles...a knee is a short kick.

If the person is closer or maybe at a different angle the knee might work better..it depends on your range , targets and a whole hell of a lot of other stuff.:p

[tattooedmonk]

That sounded familiar. I'm not a big fan of pressure point techniques, so I did not consider that application. To me it is either pulling a body part to the hand (which the form should show that hand moving toward the leg, imo) or done to show focus or to make a nice pretty sound for demonstration purposes.those are weak areas even if you dont know the preasure points. knowing the points and their effects and the affects of striking them can be important.:)

[MasterKiller]

And Masterkiller, it is possible to hold the head and kick it simultanously. While knees might be easier it doesn't make the kick impossible. WL also does a line drill that consist of a heel kick and palm strike hitting the same distance. I've even kicked the back of my hand doing that drill so I have no problem hitting the same target with both hand and foot. I know you've gone all MMA these days and while it may not be the best choice in a fight it's still an option.

Show me a video of anyone doing anything remotely close to this in even a semi-live environment...

We are talking about a straight front kick, correct? While holding the head? The dude's whole body is in the way. Maybe a groin kick...but, c'mon now...

[Drake]

It is the same range of motion ,engaging the same muscles...a knee is a short kick.

If the person is closer or maybe at a different angle the knee might work better..it depends on your range , targets and a whole hell of a lot of other stuff.:p

If you kick the same way you knee someone, one of the two (or both) is being done incorrectly.

[shen ku]

Is master frank and good performer?... YES Is he a knowledgable and skilled in the art of fighting? even a BIGGER YES

[RenDaHai]

on Kicking your hand;

Its done all the time in Kung Fu

The hand strikes out towards the opponents face. THis is not to grab or hit but meerly to create a reaction. When they react to the hand they do not register the kick to the nuts so quickly. It is an extension of Shaolins first principle 'Xian Fan, hou Gong' (First disrupt, then manouver).

YOu should never kick out obviously, so a move of the hand at the same time as the kick is warranted. Ideally you could finger strike the eyes or the throat at the same time as kicking the nuts but this is easier said then done.

The straight snap kick is almost always below the waist. In SongShanShaolin you are supposed to kick at waist height and reach for your foot to slap it. THis is actually very difficult to do, it requires flexibility. It is much easier to slap the foot when you kick higher, thats why people kick higher.

YOu rarely get a chance to do a straight snap kick to the face because the body is in the way of the circular arc. If the head is bent down then the hands are in the way and the leg is easily caught, you should use a circular kick when the head is ducked. So the straight snap is generally a kick to the nuts.


So why slap the foot? Reasons below;

1. So you learn to throw your hand out at the same time as the kick as a distraction. Or a finger strike to eyes or throat, or simply to scratch down the face, or obscuring the eyes to hide the kick. Take your pick.

2. So you become flexible enough to touch your foot when it is at its longest (waist height). This way if it (the leg) is caught your hand can reach the opponents arm quickly.

3. To measure power

4. To condition hand

5. To make a cool noise

6. To prevent injury. (When you are always kicking with full power and stopping your leg using your own muscles, this hurts the tendons at the side of the knee. Kicking a hand gives you something to bounce off).

Good enough reasons?

These are the reasons we do it in Song Shan Shaolin (Actual Shaolin temple). I can't speak for Shaolin Do.

[rett]

It is an extension of Shaolins first principle 'Xian Fan, hou Gong' (First disrupt, then manouver).

Cool post, thanks. Can anyone help with the characters here? I'm guessing this one?

先反后攻

(because 反攻 = counterattack)

But I don't see many google hits on this collocation.

Or could Fan be 烦 ？

Also anyone know if the phrase can be "unpacked" into multi-syllable words?

[RenDaHai]

Cool post, thanks. Can anyone help with the characters here?

My mistake, its 'Fang'.

先防后攻

Lit. 'Now Defend, after attack'. However, its not quite so simple. The principle is broken down so that 'Fang' means a movement which disrupts, in the case of a block this disrupts the opponents attack, when used without the opponent making a move, the 'Fang' movement becomes a distraction, a disruption of the opponents senses. Similarly Gong is not simply attack but to use a technique of some kind.

[rett]

Thanks, that makes sense.

When slapping the foot do you keep the elbow of the slapping arm down and close to the front of the body as the hand goes up, and then slap? By not extending the "fang" arm too much, especially at the beginning, it could be a preemptive attack and a "statistical" cover-up block at the same time, since you don't know what might be just about to come at you. While starting the slap the arm is almost snaking out like a wingchun tan sau. Hard to describe in words.

Perhaps related to the principle of maintaining some curvature: a better defensive structre even while striking.

Just random thoughts... hope it's clear enough.

[One student]

"and yes Garry Mullins is a bad mofo. He and Frank Mingione are the two best 8th Degrees."

With respect, and I've been in class with both Garry Mullins and Frank Mingione (back in another day), and they are both exceptional practitioners and athletes, and both have superior sparring skills, but I've seen Bob Green do things that defy explanation, from a fighting point of view and internal skills. And I'd put a good word in for Eric Smith too, including from personal experience. They both though are among those that don't advertise or promothe themselves, and it seems those with the most skill don't publicize it, and that is why (or at least partly why) public examples of SD form work are hard to find. Or I should say, "good" examples.

[RJ797]

I think we need to realize just what a load of **** Bill Leonard's open letter is. Those of you who are agreeing with him need to put down the Kool-Aid.

Bill Leonard fails to explain the part about the other 30+ forms Sin The' says he made up.

Question to Sin The' in deposition: "And then you have 29 forms you made up yourself?"

Sin The's Answer: "As of 1990. And then I make up another 30 -- 37 or 40 some form up to now."

So, which forms might those be? Will Bill Leonard be posting a list for us?

[tattooedmonk]

If you kick the same way you knee someone, one of the two (or both) is being done incorrectly.I guess you just don't know how to do a kick and knee properly , it's ok most people don't know anything about their bodies. You still have to engage the same muscles through the same a range of motion in a front kick and a front knee. I understand how it is different and the same, drake.

[MasterKiller]

I guess you just don't know how to do a kick and knee properly , it's ok most people don't know anything about their bodies. You still have to engage the same muscles through the same a range of motion in a front kick and a front knee. I understand how it is different and the same, drake.

A straight front kick is nothing like a knee.

[tattooedmonk]

Whatever, you just want argue. A knee is more like a kick than it is any other striking technique. It utilizes the same components of the kinetic chain. The same nervous system, bones and muscle. The arc maybe smaller and the part of the leg you are using for striking maybe different, it's still essentially the same. I am aware of the differences . There are more similarities than differences. A knee is a type of kick, hell even a sweep is a type of kick.

[MasterKiller]

sorry, bro. A knee is more like a lead jab than a front straight kick.

A sweep is like a kick, but a knee isn't even close.

[MasterKiller]

I think we need to realize just what a load of **** Bill Leonard's open letter is. Those of you who are agreeing with him need to put down the Kool-Aid.

Bill Leonard fails to explain the part about the other 30+ forms Sin The' says he made up.

Question to Sin The' in deposition: "And then you have 29 forms you made up yourself?"

Sin The's Answer: "As of 1990. And then I make up another 30 -- 37 or 40 some form up to now."

So, which forms might those be? Will Bill Leonard be posting a list for us?

Mercer won't touch this question with a 10 foot Shaolin katana.

[Drake]

Whatever, you just want argue. A knee is more like a kick than it is any other striking technique. It utilizes the same components of the kinetic chain. The same nervous system, bones and muscle. The arc maybe smaller and the part of the leg you are using for striking maybe different, it's still essentially the same. I am aware of the differences . There are more similarities than differences. A knee is a type of kick, hell even a sweep is a type of kick.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. This is a pretty self-evident thing I'm talking about.

Just because it uses the same limb means absolutely nothing.

[themeecer]

Mercer won't touch this question with a 10 foot Shaolin katana.

Meecer .. not Mercer .. how long have we known each other bro? (Last name is Meece .. was a nickname that was given to me long ago. Early on I found that Meecer was taken so I chose themeecer)

Actually, I am being lazy ... I found statements within the same deposition that contradict that or at the very least are vague. I was planning on finding them, but my ADD has kicked in. I will agree that even though my loyalties lie with GM Sin, that this wasn't a stellar moment. I find it hard wrapping my brain around how a person can copyright a set of movements. However, I am not privy to the circumstances between GM Sin, the Soards, and 'Jake Mace.' Maybe I would understand it better, if I was. I do know that GM Sin has always treated me very well and the material I learned from him through my teacher has served me very well.

I do find it hard to believe that our brown belt bird katas were pulled out of thin air. There is just too much meat there to be randomly thrown together. I actually prefer this material to some of our recent seminars. Maybe it is because I was weaned on these 27 years ago and have such a deep working familiarity with them.

As to the slapping the foot with a front kick. I use it for training purposes, but have never used it in sparring or in a self defense situation. I lack the ability to effectively pull that off as well. I could better see using the slap with a crescent kick, to help with accuracy.

[Radhnoti]

...also, I was under the impression that the brown belt bird forms were a portion of what Master Sin's brother, Hiang "majored" in under GM Ie.

Thought I'd come see what's going on...I have friends still in SD and this seems to have shaken them up quite a bit.

[tattooedmonk]

sorry, bro. A knee is more like a lead jab than a front straight kick.

A sweep is like a kick, but a knee isn't even close.Well I have never thrown a knee with my arm before, whatever. Guess you don't know much about the body either.

actually , a knee is more like an elbow more than anything else , if you want to get technical. The knee is done with a leg and is nothing like a jab.

[tattooedmonk]

I don't think you know what you're talking about. This is a pretty self-evident thing I'm talking about.

Just because it uses the same limb means absolutely nothing.just because you think something is not what matters. It's simple ****ing science..... And yeah it is ... Its evident that you don't know what you are talking about.

[Drake]

Have fun being wrong. :D

[MasterKiller]

just because you think something is not what matters. It's simple ****ing science..... And yeah it is ... It evident that you don't know what you are talking about.

Knees attack thrusting forward, like a jab. Elbows attack in side to side or up and down strokes. Completely different motion. If I didnt know better, I'd assume you were a forms fairy...

[MasterKiller]

Meecer .. not Mercer .. how long have we known each other bro? (Last name is Meece .. was a nickname that was given to me long ago. Early on I found that Meecer was taken so I chose themeecer).

Typing on a phone at an Easter egg hunt. Calm thyself, broham.

[tattooedmonk]

Knees attack thrusting forward, like a jab. Elbows attack in side to side or up and down strokes. Completely different motion. If I didnt know better, I'd assume you were a forms fairy...Whatever , you incorrect of your understanding of the mechanics of a knee, elbow and or kicks... Plus I am speaking from facts, yours is just opinion.:D

[tattooedmonk]

Have fun being wrong. :D
Enjoy being under educated and over opinionated .:D

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Just say'n

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MmgARZipFI&feature=related

[MasterKiller]

Whatever , you incorrect of your understanding of the mechanics of a knee, elbow and or kicks... Plus I am speaking from facts, yours is just opinion.:D

Yeah, my guys have 5 MMA title belts beause I teach them incorrect technique. What have your students won again?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwQF5RKlLio&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Drake]

I don't think you need ANY belts to realize how off his statement was, MK.

[Scott R. Brown]

Yeah, my guys have 5 MMA title belts beause I teach them incorrect technique. What have your students won again?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwQF5RKlLio&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The real question is, how can some who knows so little about what he is talking about get so lucky that he can accidentally train 5 different people to be champions?

You are like Mr. Bean or Inspector Clouseau, or Mr. Magoo.....everything sort of just works out for you!:p

[Drake]

Competition keeps stepping on banana peels getting into the ring. :D

[Judge Pen]

This thread is best when we talk about technique. And Yao you have seen me in person, right? I believe you were present at the ACE festival in Atlanta when I blew out my knee doing one of SDs made up forms.

[tattooedmonk]

Yeah, my guys have 5 MMA title belts beause I teach them incorrect technique. What have your students won again?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwQF5RKlLio&feature=youtube_gdata_playerHas nothing to do with what we are talking about, once again you just like to argue. I made the mistake of thinking you want to have a :rolleyes:discussion.

[tattooedmonk]

I don't think you need ANY belts to realize how off his statement was, MK.are you enjoying the riding on MKs nutsack!?

[tattooedmonk]

Yeah, my guys have 5 MMA title belts beause I teach them incorrect technique. What have your students won again?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwQF5RKlLio&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I watched your video, that was nothing like a jab. Looked more like a kick coming from the back leg than a jab. Jabs are done with the lead hand not the back leg. So either you. Are wrong, your examples wrong or both.

[MasterKiller]

I watched your video, that was nothing like a jab. Looked more like a kick coming from the back leg than a jab. Jabs are done with the lead hand not the back leg. So either you. Are wrong, your examples wrong or both.

LOL at trying to talk about mechanics and physiology, an your rebuttal is "jabs are done with the lead hand."

[tattooedmonk]

LOL at trying to talk about mechanics and physiology, an your rebuttal is "jabs are done with the lead hand."I was being funny.
I just realized it is pointless to have a conversation with you about anything. I could add to it ,but why? No point in argueing with you, you are a know it all and a fat mouth.

[Drake]

What are you, 14 years old?

MK is right. Deal with it.

[rett]

The Muay Thai kick in that video looks very similar in mechanics to their roundhouse kick, at least in the first part of the movement.

Same step and same hip?

Starting from the back leg, using the hip turn, leading with the knee, the support foot turns outward. Then they diverge, with the knee strike thrusting with the knee forward but the roundhouse uncocking the leg and the foot moving in a half circle. But the core of the movement looks very similar.

Or if I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected.

[MasterKiller]

The Muay Thai kick in that video looks very similar in mechanics to their roundhouse kick, at least in the first part of the movement.

A MT kick and traditional round kick are somewhat similar, but there are major differences. A traditional round kick snaps from the knee, with the emphasis on maintaining balance.

A MT or San Da round kick folds the hips and power is generated like a baseball swing; by turning the hips. The trade off is more power, but if you miss your back is exposed because momentum forces you around, and your balance can be compromised.

Traditional kicks use a little hip power, depending on your teacher, but not in the same manner as the sport kick.

[tattooedmonk]

What are you, 14 years old?

MK is right. Deal with it.Are you? You are wrong and so is he, you are just to ignorant too know it.

[Drake]

Are you? You are wrong and so is he, you are just to ignorant too know it.

Yeah, because the Army sends 14 year olds to Afghanistan.

However, there's no shortage of kids who plague the internet hurling juvenile insults when they are proven disastrously wrong.

On THAT note, I'm done with you, kid.

Got your back, MK.

And Rett... you aren't wrong that the two techniques appear the same. Not being a MT person, I would wager that the fact that they look similar assists them when conducting feints. A low block for a knee makes it hard to readjust to something higher, especially considering the fast and chaotic nature of fights. I think I've even seen some clips where the opponent looked like he was moving to block a knee, only to be kicked square upside the head.

You'd have to be looking at posture instead of the limb at that point.

[tattooedmonk]

I just call it like I see it. You have been riding his nuts the whole way and have shown only ignorance, army man. Now you are just being stupid.

[Drake]

I just call it like I see it. You have been riding his nuts the whole way and have shown only ignorance, army man. Now you are just being stupid.

I'm quite stunned that you haven't been banned yet. You are contributing nothing and insulting people, including mods.

[MasterKiller]

Are you? You are wrong and so is he, you are just to ignorant too know it.

http://kisrael.com/m/2009.10.07.Cat_slide_treadmill.gif

[themeecer]

Yeah, because the Army sends 14 year olds to Afghanistan.


Thank you brother.

[kwaichang]

Hey the Jab is usually with the lead hand , the knee is multi angle not just straight on , It can be thrown inward , outward and straight on Lead and back leg. The round house is different for MT , Japanese and Korean all three have different mechanics and mode of power generation and physics. The Hand slapping the foot or shin thing, well no one has brought up the idea of the person being sideways instead of straight on. No one will stand there straight on and let you straight leg kick them in the groin and pull their head down, I read all of the last 4 pages and none of you even thought the attackee was at another angle other than straight on in the app of that technique, some what limited thinking I would say. KC:D

[MasterKiller]

The Hand slapping the foot or shin thing, well no one has brought up the idea of the person being sideways instead of straight on. No one will stand there straight on and let you straight leg kick them in the groin and pull their head down, I read all of the last 4 pages and none of you even thought the attackee was at another angle other than straight on in the app of that technique, some what limited thinking I would say. KC:D

You're also limiting your thinking by not assuming you are in zero gravity and your opponent is a xenomorph.

[kwaichang]

Sir U hate it when you are called on something dont ya . Come on Fonzie MK say it U were Wrooooong KC:)

[sanjuro_ronin]

IF your system was legit and the forms developed by someone with correct understanding of the historical context of forms, you would realize that not EVERY move has a combat application in a form ( though you can most certainly make one have it if you want to).
Forms were created not only to "catalog" techniques and principles but also for physical exercises.
A move like the "kicking of the hand" was quite probably just that, a part of the form that was used for displaying/testing physical prowess ( in this case flexibility).