Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Judge Pen]

sorry, I just don't freely give stuff away. i know most of you people on this forum seem to think its ok to just give hard earned stuff away, but its not how i was taught to do things. You can contact my sifu for any further knowledge on this form if you wish.

you're asking me to tell you what you're doing wrong. so i tell you, then you fix it to do it the right way? HELLLLLLLLLL NO!

Really? I'm not trying to fix any mechanics. I just wanted to know why you thought it was wrong from a CMA perspective. I don't attend any martial arts class or teach. I do a few forms and chi kung on my own (of which this form is not one of them). I'm trying to have an adult conversation about body mechanics and technique and you make broad-stroked statements and then get defensive when someone politely asks you to elaborate on how you got to that opinion. Heck you could have said that the angle of my back foot doesn't allow my hips to open up and that is a classic hallmark of karate and that would give me some perspective on your opinion but still not give away the proper angle or mechanics. Do you see where I'm coming from?

[Judge Pen]

So, knowing that you have been lied to, the only proper thing to do is contact my sifu and pay him to make the corrections then actually tell people you learned it then had it corrected by the head master of the branch of kungfu that owns that form. thats the solution i can think of for you or anyone unfortunate enough to have learned our form that way.

Sin The may have lied to my teacher, but my teacher did not lie to me. He told me he learned the form from Sin The. At the time I was fine with that explanation. As I don't train in SD formally anymore, I question the origins of a lot of what I've been taught, but I don't have any real interest other than an intellectual one at this point.

If I wanted to really delve into this form then I might go seek out someone in your lineage. I could compare what I have been doing (most accurately: used to do) to your lineage and understand the differences. But wasting a little time on a Wednesday afternoon on KFO and talking nuance and technique is about as far as my interest goes at this point.

[Judge Pen]

My apologies bro. but I don't want to tell you or anyone outside of my lineage anything about anything other than the shaolin 5 animal form is our form and that Jake Mace had mangled it and denies its source. all i want is for people to know the truth. nothing else.

and since you posted the pics, i will say your hand positions are wrong. if that is the beginning of the form and you are using tiger claws you are doing it wrong. the position of your hands are wrong. jakes demo is WRONG.

what is the correct way? I DON'T KNOW! am i lying about knowing....maybe. But i'm not going to tell you how to do it right.

Don't lie. If you're going to get upset at others lying than speak the truth yourself. There's no reason for you to lie. You don't have to tell me anything. But don't get offended if you tell someone they are doing it wrong when they ask how are they doing it wrong.

The last picture is not in the begining of the form. It's in the middle of the form. I don't have my notes in front of me but I believe my teacher called that posture "Tiger exits the cave" of somethign similar. It's been 3 years since I've done the form so my memory on all the posture names is a little shakey.

[Judge Pen]

Lie? what am i lying about? you and the rest of anyone in Shaolin DO does our Five Animal form with HORRIBLE karate flavor and hand postures. anyone in kung fu that knows of karate can point that out.

the only thing that offends me is the outright lying to the masses for financial gain. Your Sin The has no honor in my eyes.



keep on practicing what your teacher taught you. i will keep on telling the rest of the world how Shaolin Do got their hands on OUR FORM.
and that last pic of you doing the TIGER CLAWS is a PURE KARATE WAY OF DOING THE TIGER CLAW. sorry.

You said:

what is the correct way? I DON'T KNOW! am i lying about knowing....maybe. But i'm not going to tell you how to do it right.

I said you don't have to lie. Either you know and don't want to tell me (which is your choice but you can understand why people would question your statements if you aren't willing to put them in perspective) or you don't know (which I don't believe by the way).

So, without giving away any HS CLF secrets, what about the last picture makes it a "karate" tiger claw? Is it the depth of my stance? The angle of my stance? The position of my fingers in relation to the palm? Something else? Also: What branch of Karate? Gojo-ryu? Shotokan? Shorin-ryu?

[Judge Pen]

ok i lied. i know this form.



Long Inhale.......Exhale........ the karate type of tiger claw is too tight, too focused on a strong tight shape. This is NOT the type of tiger used by my lineage. what you are doing is more akin to KARATE than Kung Fu. what branch of karate is on no importance as most all of karate use the same type of tiger claw which is different to that of the Hung Sing Choy lee Fut system

What you are doing is more akin to THIS. This is NOT a Kung Fu tiger Claw.

http://www.cyberbudo.com/karate-jutsu-international/images/tiger.jpg

your tiger claw right next to your temple is KARATE and not kung fu. well more specifically Hung Sing style.

Thank-you. Now we are getting to a constructive conversation. Although my exact hand/finger position is slightly different than you photo (namely the position of my thumb is back furhter than the photo), you are correct that my claw is rigid. I was first taught an SD tiger-claw 22 years ago and I was taught that the focus was the ball of the fingers and the heel of the hand for the initial strike with the raking/tearing of the fingers to occur in conjunction with the concussive force of the strike. So there is certainly a grabbing/raking/tearing component to the tiger-claw as I was taught but it was also a strike with the ball and heel of the hand. If that is different than your lineage of CLF then I defer to your knowledge.

Now the reasons for this go beyond where SD learned the 5 animal form and gets back to a discussion of the essence of SD's origins. CMA/kung tao/JMA or some indonesian blend of whatever.

[Judge Pen]

I suppose my question is do any CMA styles do tiger claw in the way I was taught? Obviously Hung Sing does not. What about any northern styles? Other southern styles?

[Judge Pen]

the thing is, karate only understands it as a raking move. But kung fu people have developed the tiger claw far beyond karate's knowledge of it. while you might try to rake my eyes, i'm busy using my tiger claw to tear into your face, and other fleshy areas. karate people keep their fingers tight the whole way through, kungfu doesn't.

the strike of tiger claw using the butt of the palm is one way. what we don't do, is RAKE.

Assuming what you say is correct, then it supports the idea that SD is a hybrid. The technique of tiger claw as it was taught to me is both a strike and a rake. I'm not just trying to rake your eyes, I'm trying to crush your nose, or your temple or your jaw or your ribs and then grab you and pull you into other techniques. Is that karate? Kung fu? Just good fighting?

[Judge Pen]

all i can tell is there is no shaolin in Shaolin Do. the problem with you trying to rake or rake and strike is the head moves and tries to avoid all strikes. and, just because you may understand some basic combat principals, doesn't mean you're a kung fu system. the moves, the flavor, the terminology, of shaolin do SCREAM OUT LOUD AT THE TOPS OF THEIR LUNGS........WE'RE KUNGARATE. Kung Fu by name, Karate by essence and everything esle.

You said Karate only understands the rake and HSCLF is about the strike. Both are basic combat principals. The way I was taught was a fundamental part of my foundation material and how I've been doing it since I was a beginner. The problem with any basic combat principal is that your opponent is moving and trying to stop you which is why you have variety of technique and movement. If all I get is a tiger claw strike, then good. If I can parlay that into a rake or a grab then better.

If you've read this thread, my thoughts on what SD is in reality is well documented. I think it is a melting pot of material that was taught in Indonesia to a talented pair of brothers who then taught it to a bunch of Americans in Kentucky. I think it evolved and grew from there. It started out being about the conditioning and the fighting and then became more commercialized and more about forms and form collecting.

I think that there are some very good core techniques and principals that work in application. I think there is a CMA component to the technique. I think there is a JMA component to the techniques. I think there's probably a blending of many marital influences that make what we do very different in flavor than either kung fu or karate. (Trust me, I've met some good Japanese style martial artists and they don't identify our techniques as karate even though many kung fu people are very quite to put us in that catagory). I think we are our own style for better or for worse. I know I've done all right sparring some high level people of other styles (Chinese, Japanese and Korean) so it can't all be bad. As far as my own training and experience, I have no apologies, but I did get tired of the politics and the lack of detail and information about some forms but I have nothing but good things to say about my teachers who pushed me and made be a better fighter and martial artists every class I had with them.

[Judge Pen]

and i don't have a problem with a hybrid system. as long as it states its true roots and if it teaches something from another system give credit where credit is due. honesty is the best policy if you plan to be around for any length of time.

I can only be true and honest with myself and my understandings of what I know and what I was taught. Once I learned a technique it became mine. If I can use it then it was a good technique. If I couldn't make it work for me, then it is not a good technique. The origins of my kung fu is in my heart and mind. I don't claim any long line of secrets; only what works for me.

[Judge Pen]

i never said HSCLF is about the strike. but what we DON"T do is hold that extremely tight tiger like you were doing. because you are not primarily gung fu, real gung fu, you can't see what i see. you're a product of those trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

your foundation material is all karate. do you know for a fact and how do you know that Sin The learned from real and authentic gung fu masters? if shaolin do had true shaolin roots, where are they? who are they?

Assuming that your fingers/hands are not as rigid, then I can understand your tiger claw position is different than the way I taught. So it's clear from your description that my claw is different than the hung sing claw. As far as Sin The's teachers, all I know is what I was told, so I can't vouch for its veracity. Sin The grew up in Indonesia. He claims his teachers were Ie Chang Ming who died shortly after Sin The moved to America. Is that true? I don't know. I have seen photos and video that were taken when my teacher visited the school in Indonesia. I've seen people there doing material that looked very similar in content to what we do here. Is that kung fu? Karate? Kung Tao? A hybrid? I'm not sure anymore, but I lean toward the melting pot for a number of reasons. I can say this: no one has shown me a direct connection to the shaolin temples. The stories that have been told are all well and good, but they don't help me defend myself.

[Judge Pen]

if you are using karate and calling it Chinese Kung Fu.....its a lie.

LOL. Whatever. Kung fu is a descriptive term of mastery through time and effort. I don't call what I know shaolin or even northern or southern. If someone asks me the origins I tell them what I've said. It's a blend of who knows what filtered through two Indoneisan born men who taught it in America to several people including my teachers.

Nice tiger-claws here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJB1zDVCgqY

[kwaichang]

I may not know the Kung fu u speak of but I will put my Kara-Te knowledge up to anyone here. I have done it and another system of Kungfu prior to SD so in that let me say SD is not Kara-te what it is is to be determined but it is not Karate definately not of Korean , Okinawan and or Japanese decent. KC:)

[Judge Pen]

all i care about is you and any other shaolin do person that knows OUR form to give it its proper credit and stop spreading more and more lies about its origin. because anything other than "it belongs to the hung Sing kwoon" is complete bull****



your whiteness is showing.

Back on the Merry-go-round: I'm not denying your lineage's claim to the form.

[kwaichang]

Dont know about u but the clip you showed was and is what I was taught in Hung Jia and SD. KC

[Judge Pen]

Dont know about u but the clip you showed was and is what I was taught in Hung Jia and SD. KC

That's hskwarrior messing around before teaching.

[kwaichang]

Was reading yur post and you wrote Marital not Martial influences but maybe they are the same right. LOL KC:)

[Judge Pen]

Was reading yur post and you wrote Marital not Martial influences but maybe they are the same right. LOL KC:)

Oops. Except I always loose when I fight my wife. Even when I win I still loose.

[Judge Pen]

Judge Pen, thanks. the fu jow is one of my specialties. even showed a few folk from the forum some time back. and yeah, that was me just freestyling my CLF while i waited for my students.

Frank, you are very fluid in your clips. You have good hand-speed, technique and fluidity. I understand how proud you are of your lineage and why you want to protect it and why you get really defensive about it sometimes. I'd like to keep conversations constructive on technique application and theory.

[Judge Pen]

thank you and on that level its all good. I am more upset with Jake Mace than anyone and feel terrible for those who got lied to.

And yes, i am very proud of my lineage and all its accomplishments. And i know that within our family there are those that don't like me and what I am doing for this lineage. yet, on the other hand these people aren't doing anything to preserve, protect and promote the lineage with the same passion as i have. and what matters most is what my sifu has to say over all.

i don't mind people not liking me. it won't stop me from doing what i'm doing.

no more needs to be said about this issue. on that note, i rest my case.

i'm open for a different conversation now.

not bad for a guy who was 302 lbs huh?

No and I can tell that you would hit like a mack truck. Not that CLF relies upon a lot of kicking (and I'm not one to talk with my hip), but your hands look better than your feet.

[kwaichang]

Hey I saw the other vid of HSK Warrior looked good what is your weight now if I may ask ? KC

[Shaolin Wookie]

what i've NEVER done is steal a form from another lineage then repackage and rename it hoping they never discover what i did. SUCKA.



LMAo.....your fake kung fu lineage practices gung fu taught out of a book and messed it up HORRIBLY because there wasn't a video yet. LMAO......

True, perhaps, but only as far as you know---about the "stealing" of course.

Now, let's say that I am a remarkable MA with great talents in fighting. Now suppose that Jake Mace teaches me his Tiger-Crane form, flawed as it is, and I decide that I can re-tailor the form far better than he does the form. I now have a 3rd form, twice removed from DFW's lineage. Which is the best of the 3 forms that then exist?

Is the 1st form the best one because it was the first form? Does it retain its "best" status simply because it was the first? Is it the best because you hit the right "markers"? Body mechanics always matter, but what if I apply, say, tai chi concepts to your tiger-crane form and wind up with a devastating martial art? What is the standard that you apply? If you accept that there are certain standards that do apply, then what standards might also apply (which you currently do not apply b/c you follow your lineage)? It's a dead end argument, whichever way you try to turn it. Forms are forms--nothing more, and it doesn't matter who taught them or how. It matters what you can do with them.

[Syn7]

Who was the cat in the vid?

[Empty_Cup]

I enjoyed the brief discussion about tiger claw.

Here's an alternate proposal: tiger claw is not tight/compact at all but is meant for striking with the fingertips (assuming proper conditioning of course). So to strike like this and get maximum strength/stability of the fingers, you would not hit with the heel of the hand but would have your fingers splayed out similar to doing a fingertip pushup.

Thoughts?

[Shaolin Wookie]

HSK Warrior....

You say that Jake Mace is f-ing up your form by making it karate-like. This is always the thing that makes kung fu practitioners disparage Shaolin-Do. What exactly about the karate-ness of certain motions makes karate so bad, such that a good motion in a kung fu form becomes "bad" when it is slightly karate-fied?


In fact, why is kung fu better than karate, if we give these terms their nationalistic meaning? I like CMA better than karate, and I think that many techniques are great, but I don't know what you (or anyone else) means by saying that kung fu is "better" because it isn't karate or doesn't have any karate-fied mechanics. I've often learned more about the benefits of a given style by taking classes in other MA's.

It can't be effectiveness that makes kung fu so much better. Lyoto Machida is a karate expert (on top of many other things) and is a world champion full-contact fighter. Cung Le (the champion of many CMA guys, simply because he throws some kung fu-like kicks) is a wrestler and a TKD blackbelt, not a kung fu guy. Even his sanshou is primarily western wrestling and simple kickboxing, LOL, and he trounced on guys who didn't have wrestling on par with his own by stomping on crappy sanshou fighters. It wasn't that Cung Le's sanshou was THAT great, but instead that the calibre fighter he faced in routine sanshou circuits wasn't that great because they couldn't handle a purebred wrestler. He doesn't fare nearly as well in MMA, even though he's one of my favorites to watch. There are no world champion kung fu fighters. TKD and karate seem to have the upper hand in the world, EXCEPT on kung fu webboards.

Just curious as to why kung fu practitioners who adopt some kuntao/karate/silat characteristics are definitely doing something "wrong" in your view. Seems to me that they are often doing something right by privileging practicality over kung fu's inveterate "pieces of flair" and "secret family styles."

[Shaolin Wookie]

BTW, I am with you 100% when you (HSK) say that SD should reveal its sources of information. I don't believe that anyone can know a thousand forms and perform each one at the drop of a hat, but I do believe that someone can learn them progressively, forgetting 10 for every ten that have been learned. This seems to be the SD way, from what I've seen of the guys who "collect forms." It's a silly enterprise.

Like JP, I think that there are lies that are told, which fudge the true sources. This isn't stealing, but it is dishonest. That is an issue for SD practitioners, not you. We are the one's defrauded if the material is pawned off as something it is not. You are NOT affected in the least. At best, you're just ****ed off that someone knows your ****, and he isn't doing it pretty enough. Still, it doesn't make that much of a difference except from the perspective of a martial arts historian, whihc is why your point is lost on most SD guys. We aren't looking for a cult of ancestors. Most of us aren't looking for a religion. We're looking for practical martial arts and a way to keep in shape.

Most SD players would likely say: Doc Fai Wong may be the lineage holder of this form, and GM Sin taught the same form to our teachers. We may not trust where GM Sin says that he got his form from, but we often trust our teachers (many of whom are very gifted MA's) make good of it based on their wide experience (and many years of it). And just like in your school, some students will butcher it, and others will develop it. Some teachers will butcher it, some forget it, and some will develop it. They may even develop it in ways you can't imagine.

[Shaolin Wookie]

white or chinese syn?

Neither. I'm an Apache warrior.

[Syn7]

white or chinese syn?


How can you ask me that? I think I'm offended. After all the back and forth you don't think I know what's going on?
The good one. I know who Jake Mace is from the other vids you posted before.

I didn't wanna assume it was Lau Bun or Doc Fai Wong. Pretty grainy, looks like a generic kung fu guy coz you can't see the face very well. He's good tho, I can see that much. Very strong legs.

[Syn7]

Reading the exchanges here in the forum recently regarding the 5 animal form is entertaining. I see a few martial artists asking intelligent questions of an individual that proclaims superior knowledge and credit as a martial artist, even to the point of using the term warrior in their screen name. What this petulant individual does/says is nothing remotely resembling the actions of a martial artist or a warrior. The petty insults, disparaging remarks and outright chalenges are in very poor taste and are actions of a bratty child instead of a warrior of honor. Oh yeah, I was a SD-er, but I am also a Judoka and a practicioner of Byakuren. I have also served putting boot to a$$ for God and country and have proven myself in that area as a warrior. So, to you, hsk, **** off. BTW, if a piece is published, put out to the public, isn't it understood that there will be those that will accept that gift and incorporate it into their own material? In other words, if the guy did not want folks to pick up the material, he should not have published it and put it out in order to make money off of it in the first place.

Okay, now I will sit back and listen to troll boy hsk whine some more.

When a form is published or taught to a student the permission is for individual consumption only. It isn't to be taught without authorization and it certainly isn't to be used to make money by an illegitimate practitioner. That is common in all MA's. If somebody went to SD for a few years, got kicked out and then taught the SD forms and curriculum on their own under a new name, SD would bring suit. Showing a form in public does not release all intellectual rights to the form. I don't know about precedent in relation to CMA's and the law in the states over ownership of obscure forms, but it is covered in a general sense. It is intellectual property. There is much debate on intellectual property rights right now, we'll see where that goes. But even if it isn't illegal to learn a form from a book then teach it for money without permission, it is most definitely frowned upon and considered immoral in the MA world.

There are a ton of crackerjack americanized MAs out here with nice lil storefronts. Most of them don't get sh1t on here coz even tho they are sad and inauthentic, they aren't actually stealing specific forms. They just make up their own bad ones. The reason Shaolin Do gets sh1t on is because they consistently make false claims. Why not just be who they are and stand tall like so many of their victims? Why the lies? It causes way more problems than it's worth.

[Syn7]

Part of the problem involved here is the almighty trade union/govt. regulation mentality of the Chinese vs. the free market mentality of America. Chinese martial arts has a very disgusting history of using the government as a bargaining chip in business affairs (think of the Shaolin/Emperor connection, whereby these "poor" monks lived off of the largesse of public expropriation by despots, thereby justifying governmental theft and the suppresison of liberty). Crossing the Pacific didn't change things. Even GM Sin, for instance, tried to claim a patent for his forms in court in order to fight a former student who was teaching without GM Sin's authorization. GM Sin lost (if I recall correctly)---and rightly so. How could he claim property in another person's memories? He could only claim property in the curriculum, the courts claimed (and I think this, too, is an injustice). GM Sin taught some of his forms out across public access television in Kentucky. Seems to me that he believed that others could learn mere forms from video--just like HSK's teacher--but was somehow ****ed off that others felt they could teach without a certificate (a license for business). What makes GM Sin or HSK Warrior's teachers so great that they--and only they--should have the right to say what should be taught? If this very narrowminded menatlity were the norm, (well, it is the norm in public schoolhouses), then NOBODY would ever learn anything new, and we'd all be slaves to our ancestors. (again, a very Chinese notion).

"Learning" is never a top-to-bottom enterprise. Yes, you often need a teacher if you wish to learn, but not always, or else nobody would learn anything new. Experience and Theory go hand-in-hand, but you may learn more from one than the other at times. But "you" are always the central figure in the learning process. If you don't wish to learn, then you won't. And if your teacher tells you that you owe him for life just for what he has taught you, then you may politely decline payment and tell him that he is wrong. Maybe he'll learn something new--something valuable.

And if someone claims that his teacher was the **** when it came to tiger-crane, and that his lineage is the source of that info, then you may mark down the historical relevance of that fact. But nobody owes anybody anything in this affair.

And we might--in theory....note that I'm strictly speaking in theory here--tell a sassy sourpuss who has a lineage on his back and an axe to grind, to simply **** off, and do so politely--in his own room and off of the KFM forum.

So your position on intellectual property is that all ideas spoken or written should be open source? So if you develop a sweet encryption code, the only way to keep it yours is to never use it? The only way to ensure a form is yours is to never show anyone? I understand the spirit behind that, but it creates so many problems. Too many examples to list.

You can use money to buy and suppress knowledge, and that sucks. But the trade off is that a man can profit from better ideas rather than just automatically placing it in the hands of those who already have the means and infrastructure to put the ideas in motion. That never ends well when the inevitable oligarchy sorts it out. At least with intellectual rights people can make a better life for themselves. And if they want to make it open source, cool, they can do that if they choose.

It would be nice if all decisions were based solely on moral considerations, but that isn't the case.

[Syn7]

Something about kicking ass that always brings up the legal rights of the dead (or retired).

Everyone wants to kick ass through a ouiji board.

Actually, I own the intellectual rights to kicking ass.

[Syn7]

He "stole" information from a book? Did I steal from Leo Tolstoy when I just recalled the episode of Levin mowing wheat in Anna Karenina just now? Are all of our children thieves when we teach them to read, and worse, to remember the alphabet on cue? LOL.

It is not crime to remember a story, but it is illegal to turn around and resell it with a new name without explicit permission from the owner of the piece.

[Syn7]

It is not stealing if it is already in the public and once you have taken possession of it you can call it whatever you like.

So if I write, record and release a song, you can just take it and sell it to whoever you want? That would be bullsh1t and you know it. How is a form any different than a story or a song?

Personally, I just think MA's are light years behind when it comes to the law. They really need to catch up and put disclaimers on everything. Make students sign contracts of conduct and all that. Some do, many don't. It seems like the cracker jack schools are way more knowledgeable of the law and use that to their advantage. A strip mall commercial karate school will mos def have disclaimers whereas the old dude who teaches at the park for free but still wants his rights respected is relying on the honor system. Back in the day it was cool, if you were dishonorable then it could be settled between the schools. That doesn't fly anymore, and legal knowledge is the only real protection for property rights, intellectual or otherwise.

Any judge that rules against clear cut intellectual property rights is over-reaching and the decision should be appealed. Unfortunately in the states it is really hard to remove appointed judges, even when they are bat sh1t crazy.

[Syn7]

But assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, and despite the fact that DFW published both a video and a book of the form (markers, changes and all) and that practing that form is somehow steal stealing, then the proper accuasation for people like me (who learned it from my teacher who learned it from Sin The) is receiving stolen goods. Not nearly the same mens rea.

Opens up a whole new dynamic with the sh1t storm doesn't it :D

If somebody at the top does wrong it affects everyone.


And yes, technically it is receiving stolen goods. But I think a cease and desist order to all students who didn't know the truth is more than enough as far as sentencing is concerned.

[Empty_Cup]

So your position on intellectual property is that all ideas spoken or written should be open source? ...

Nice analogy. SD discussion aside, I actually DO believe that kung fu should be open source. I believe sources should also be honestly disclosed.

Over time, incorporating new material, making it your own, and improving upon it is what made/makes kung fu so great and adaptable even centuries later than it was initially created. I believe it honors our kung fu predecessors even more to adapt and change this system based on internalization of the concepts and practice than it does to say, " My form is EXACTLY the same, down to the wave of my pinky finger, as it was when my great, great, great, great, great grandmaster taught it." Has anybody heard the fable of the grandmaster and student who kept coming back every 10 years?

Does anybody really believe that forms were kept exactly constant after generations of practitioners were taught even in these so-called "pure lineages?" I don't see how that is possible, especially without the use of books, DVDs, or other written documents which are always so frowned upon :rolleyes:

[Old Noob]

BTW, I am with you 100% when you (HSK) say that SD should reveal its sources of information. I don't believe that anyone can know a thousand forms and perform each one at the drop of a hat, but I do believe that someone can learn them progressively, forgetting 10 for every ten that have been learned. This seems to be the SD way, from what I've seen of the guys who "collect forms." It's a silly enterprise.

Like JP, I think that there are lies that are told, which fudge the true sources. This isn't stealing, but it is dishonest. That is an issue for SD practitioners, not you. We are the one's defrauded if the material is pawned off as something it is not. You are NOT affected in the least. At best, you're just ****ed off that someone knows your ****, and he isn't doing it pretty enough. Still, it doesn't make that much of a difference except from the perspective of a martial arts historian, whihc is why your point is lost on most SD guys. We aren't looking for a cult of ancestors. Most of us aren't looking for a religion. We're looking for practical martial arts and a way to keep in shape.

Most SD players would likely say: Doc Fai Wong may be the lineage holder of this form, and GM Sin taught the same form to our teachers. We may not trust where GM Sin says that he got his form from, but we often trust our teachers (many of whom are very gifted MA's) make good of it based on their wide experience (and many years of it). And just like in your school, some students will butcher it, and others will develop it. Some teachers will butcher it, some forget it, and some will develop it. They may even develop it in ways you can't imagine.

100% agreement here.

I started SD because my teacher was the best martial artist I saw in the area where I was looking for schools. While I wasn't necessarily looking for lineage legitimacy, I was disappointed when I found out that there was so much dishonesty as to the origins of some of the material in the system. Still, after some soul-searching, I've stayed because: 1) I didn't start for lineage legitimacy in the first place; 2) my sifu is still the best MA in the area and one of the best that I've seen period; 3) my qwoon doesn't have any marshmallows in it - we work and condition hard; 5) I find that the techniques are usable; and 6) the form volume, while ensuring that I'll never get really good at any of them, provide me with enough variation that I don't get bored practicing the techniques in a series of 8 or 9 forms.

I would like to know the real history of the system. I'd like total honesty from the old guard. I'd also like congress to be functional rather than disfunctional, but I'm not going to move out of the U.S.

[Old Noob]

HSK,

I appreciate your recent contributions to the thread. When you're not angry, you offer some good information and you are clearly a skilled practitioner who has overcome some serious physical adversity. Kudos to you.

However, when you say with such assuredness what SD is, you reveal a certain amount of ignorance. Because you are very accomplished in your style, and perhaps MA generally, that doesn't make you qualified to judge all the constituent parts of another style. I think SD probably does have some JMA in it and some significant Indomensian influence as well, but to say that it's all karate and that there's no kung fu in it is not only, as JP pointed out, a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word kung fu, but also just silly. Sin The is a Chinese person who grew up in Indonesia taking MA from a qwoon where the teachers were also Chinese. This suggests to me that there is very likely some CMA in SD as well.

[Old Noob]

I enjoyed the brief discussion about tiger claw.

Here's an alternate proposal: tiger claw is not tight/compact at all but is meant for striking with the fingertips (assuming proper conditioning of course). So to strike like this and get maximum strength/stability of the fingers, you would not hit with the heel of the hand but would have your fingers splayed out similar to doing a fingertip pushup.

Thoughts?

I am by no means and expert but it seems to me that there are other hand positions that are more suitable for fingertip strikes. The tiger claw makes much more sense to me as a heel-of-the-hand strike with raking, digging, and gouging potential. If I wanted to lead with fingertips, I'd likely be targeting pressure points, which is finer work than I'd be able to do with the tiger claw. Again, though, by way of disclaimer, I'm just a six year noob.

[OTD]

Any Thoughts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shaolin Five Animals
Wu Xing Chuan
Shaolin master Zhue Yuen lived at the Northern Shaolin temple around 1540. Zhue Yuen believed that the Lohan style kung fu practiced in Shaolin focused to much on the hard external style. Zhue Yuen pondered this problem during meditation and decided to try to bring more balance to the Shaolin system. He left the temple and traveled China in search of different kung fu styles and masters.

When Zhue Yuen came to the town of Lan Zhou he met a master named Li Sou. Li Sou introduced Zhue Yuen to Bai Yu Feng who was another famous martial arts master. Zhue Yuen was able to convince both to come back with him to Shaolin Temple to develop kung fu.

Together they redeveloped Shaolin Kung Fu expanding the original 18 form Lohan Style into 128 movements which were then divided into the Shaolin 5 animal forms (Tiger, Snake, Dragon, Leopard and Crane).

OTD

[UCT]

Martial art forms were not protectable under copyright law unless they were created after 1978. Before then, there was no copyright protection for choreography. There was the cunundrum for Sin The. If what he teaches is ancient martial arts, then it is not copyrightable (you also have to be the creator to claim copyright protection, but that is another story). If Sin The created his forms after 1978, then it is not ancient Shaolin, is it. You all know what he decided to claim in the lawsuit.

The law and society favors allowing others to use and teach public information, because that leads to change and advancement. That's why patent protection doesn't last forever. Copyright protection does last a long time, but then the copying must be almost exact to be actionable. Might that be why some teachers make small changes to the forms???

Learning a form exactly might be fun for some but not for me. When I studied aikido I was more interested in doing what my body allowed me to do rather than forcing my body to do something it couldn't do well. My sensei changed many forms to fit his students needs. Didn't sit well with those in Japan, though. However, since many of his students were SWAT, it seemed pretty practical to me.

[Shaolin Wookie]

So your position on intellectual property is that all ideas spoken or written should be open source?
You can use money to buy and suppress knowledge, and that sucks. But the trade off is that a man can profit from better ideas rather than just automatically placing it in the hands of those who already have the means and infrastructure to put the ideas in motion. That never ends well when the inevitable oligarchy sorts it out. At least with intellectual rights people can make a better life for themselves. And if they want to make it open source, cool, they can do that if they choose.

It would be nice if all decisions were based solely on moral considerations, but that isn't the case.

My contention is that ideas are not scarce resources and thus cannot be "owned." You can publish a book, fine. You can publish a CD, fine. You can publish a form, fine. But you do not own the ideas (IP), because ideas are not scarce. You and I can share the same ideas, and even have different ones--all at hte same time. It's not like a coat--only one of us can wear the coat at a given time.

IP is a grant of temporary monopoly (usually about 15 years) by a government institution. Furthemore, if you create a book and copyright it, and then I decide to print another version using my paper and my ink, on a printing press in my basement, you might sue me. Under IP law, you claim a property in my ink, my printing press, and my paper, but you have no right to claim a property in those scarce resources because they are not yours. You aggress, I do nothing wrong. You have no right to what I own. If you claim that the ideas in your book are yours, and they cannot be propagated without your consent, then you shouldn't publish your book in the first place since that is the ****ing intent of the publication. I might reshape some of your ideas and note mistakes in your logic, and thus I do not propagate your ideas. I change them using....MY ideas.

So, if you publish a form, fine. Do you really think that you then have a right to my body, such that you can patent a given set of movements? Or, do you have a right to my memories, such that you could say: "You don't have a right to perform that form?" Or, would you simply claim a right in the name of a form, such that you could say: "You can't call your form the same thing that I call a form that is nearly identical!"

As for whether or not IP makes life better for people: you know that it doesn't. If IP really made life better for people, IP rights would never expire. You wouldn't sign a 15 year patent. You'd sign for perpetuity. Temporary grants of monopoly are always a sign that (1) the patentee wants to shut out competition in the design of a product, and (2) the patentee wants to use the government to monopolize profits for a bright idea. Monopoly always shuts out competition, raises the price of a good, and slows down its progress. Monopoly also shuts out improvements in the product, since nobody is allowed to copy and innovate for a long term of time. Sure, payouts for patents might decrease in a non-IP society, but there would be more payouts to more people, and more and more people would be improving on products by copying and innovating.

I'm an atheist, but you have to admit--the most profitable and influential book in all of history was propagated without IP law, and it enriched the world's mind, its arts, promoted literacy, and influenced history beyond all measure: The Bible. Even when kings tried to patent the book, they failed. When they tried to protect it from criticism, they failed. You can't stop ideas with government monopoly.

It was when governments claimed a property in the ideas of the Bible and then tried to claim a property in other peoples' minds that IP really showed its true nature--the crusades, witch-hunts, etc.

[kwaichang]

Tiger movements, a Tiger hits with the palm to stun its prey then it hangs on with claws as it uses its back claws to Rake at the body of the prey , 1st stun then grab then claw it is the order of a Real Tiger in the wild. KC

[Shaolin Wookie]

To the innocent people of shaolin do, i apologize if your feelings were hurt over this video. However, i felt it needed to be done after i contacted jake mace and he out right lied to me. That lie triggered more anger. From this point forward, if you practice the shaolin 5 animal form as seen in this video, please take a moment and know its true roots, history and source. You have been lied to. That just sucks. I'm sorry for such and outburst, but the truth needs to be told.

No problem there. Although I don't know this form, it is at least nice to know where it likely came from. Anything that bursts the Shaolin-Do "1000 original Shaolin forms, straight-from-the-temple" bubble is welcome here.

[Shaolin Wookie]

So if I write, record and release a song, you can just take it and sell it to whoever you want? That would be bullsh1t and you know it. How is a form any different than a story or a song?

Personally, I just think MA's are light years behind when it comes to the law. They really need to catch up and put disclaimers on everything. Make students sign contracts of conduct and all that. Some do, many don't. It seems like the cracker jack schools are way more knowledgeable of the law and use that to their advantage. A strip mall commercial karate school will mos def have disclaimers whereas the old dude who teaches at the park for free but still wants his rights respected is relying on the honor system. Back in the day it was cool, if you were dishonorable then it could be settled between the schools. That doesn't fly anymore, and legal knowledge is the only real protection for property rights, intellectual or otherwise.

Any judge that rules against clear cut intellectual property rights is over-reaching and the decision should be appealed. Unfortunately in the states it is really hard to remove appointed judges, even when they are bat sh1t crazy.

Great analogy. In fact, music was passed along without IP for thousands of years with no problem whatsoever. Folk music was never copyrightable, and millions of people played Beethoven without IP laws in their homes. Think of the great bluegrass traditions--Blues, Folk, etc. Were these people deprived of quality music? Nonsense. They created it, adapted it, copied it, "plagiarized" it, etc. Music never respects copyright law. If I have perfect pitch and can play a Mozart sonata off of a single hearing, do I infringe on Mozart's rights? Does this change at all concerning MA forms?

Don't White Monkey Steals the Peach and a thousand other CMA forms (esp. 7star mantis) plagiarize titles from traditional Monkey King stories? Aren't all great stories traditionally folk stories--stories passed from person-to-person without IP laws. had IP laws been in place, we might never have received Homer's Iliad and Odyssey---originally preserved by oral tradition. In pre-literate society, did anyone own oral tales? Were they protected by IP law, or should they have been? HOW ON EARTH COULD IP PROTECT ORAL TRADITION?


I'm telling you what intellectual property is--it's a temporary grant of government monopoly. I'm also telling you why it's invalid as a concept, regardless of what sillylawyers say. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson both though IP was un-American and rationally un-defendable. Perhaps that's why Franklin and Jefferson didn't patent their inventions. They believed that ideas should remain unregulated by government bureaus.

[UCT]

Not all intellectual property is a "monopoly." For example, intellectual property includes trade secrets, which are only intellectual property until made public. Think "Coke" formula. No governmental grant of a monopoly. Further, patents are not a monopoly in the strictest sense and under the commonly understood definition. A patent gives the owner no rights, other than the right to stop others from performing the patented idea. It gives the owner no right to practice the idea as elements of his idea may be subject to an existing patent owned by others. The authority to grant a patent is contained in the US Constitution, so most framers at the time thought it was a great idea. Me too, since I make a lot of money working in the field!!!

[Empty_Cup]

It's ironic that hsk is in essence accusing Jake of the exact same thing GMT did, i.e. "stealing material." I think if hsk was to try and prove the 5 Animal Form is some sort of intellectual property that Jake stole, he'd have no grounds.

There could always be agreement that Jake sucks at the form, but I don't think he say he "stole" anything.

Lawyers, thoughts?

[Syn7]

Nice analogy. SD discussion aside, I actually DO believe that kung fu should be open source. I believe sources should also be honestly disclosed.

Over time, incorporating new material, making it your own, and improving upon it is what made/makes kung fu so great and adaptable even centuries later than it was initially created. I believe it honors our kung fu predecessors even more to adapt and change this system based on internalization of the concepts and practice than it does to say, " My form is EXACTLY the same, down to the wave of my pinky finger, as it was when my great, great, great, great, great grandmaster taught it." Has anybody heard the fable of the grandmaster and student who kept coming back every 10 years?

Does anybody really believe that forms were kept exactly constant after generations of practitioners were taught even in these so-called "pure lineages?" I don't see how that is possible, especially without the use of books, DVDs, or other written documents which are always so frowned upon :rolleyes:


I love the argument about intellectual property. I find it fascinating.

Ok so I release a song, you change it slightly, change the name and re-release it... is that ok? There is huge debate about this going on right now. Lately it has been up to individual judges as to how much change makes it different enough to be something else. Most cases go for the original, but that is changing.

Why should kung fu be open source but music should not? What's the difference?

[Drake]

i've been getting some awesome support via messages to me about this. i don't need to prove it anymore. i placed our video next to his and people see they are the same form. one performed like a novice, the other looked like he actually learned the true form. but i'll spill the beans to one certain marker.

ONLY doc fai wong and his direct school uses the terminology like "Snake comes out of the hole" or Pregnant gorilla guards its egss" (monkey beaks ya'll!!!) that terminology was never passed down through my teachers school nor to him via his teacher who is doc fai wong's senior classmate by 20 years.

plus, jake straight up lied about other master in china teaching this form. with technology we have today, even the shaolin temple has the internet. he would or should be able to prove that he knows these alleged masters. if he is caught in his lie he won't look too good will he?

Or, what was that one.... "Tiger plays with the ball"?

[Syn7]

Great analogy. In fact, music was passed along without IP for thousands of years with no problem whatsoever. Folk music was never copyrightable, and millions of people played Beethoven without IP laws in their homes. Think of the great bluegrass traditions--Blues, Folk, etc. Were these people deprived of quality music? Nonsense. They created it, adapted it, copied it, "plagiarized" it, etc. Music never respects copyright law. If I have perfect pitch and can play a Mozart sonata off of a single hearing, do I infringe on Mozart's rights? Does this change at all concerning MA forms?

Don't White Monkey Steals the Peach and a thousand other CMA forms (esp. 7star mantis) plagiarize titles from traditional Monkey King stories? Aren't all great stories traditionally folk stories--stories passed from person-to-person without IP laws. had IP laws been in place, we might never have received Homer's Iliad and Odyssey---originally preserved by oral tradition. In pre-literate society, did anyone own oral tales? Were they protected by IP law, or should they have been? HOW ON EARTH COULD IP PROTECT ORAL TRADITION?


I'm telling you what intellectual property is--it's a temporary grant of government monopoly. I'm also telling you why it's invalid as a concept, regardless of what sillylawyers say. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson both though IP was un-American and rationally un-defendable. Perhaps that's why Franklin and Jefferson didn't patent their inventions. They believed that ideas should remain unregulated by government bureaus.

First, the intellectual property rights debate has nothing to do with quality, you can just leave that at the door. That isn't what I'm talking about.

There is nothing in the law that says you cannot play anothers music, NOTHING. It says you cannot PROFIT off other peoples IP. Do you understand the difference? If so, why do you keep mixing the two?

Nobody is saying that it isn't hard to bring the old world into the new developing world we see today. It is a monumental task and now with the internet we have engaged in the largest experiment in chaos in human history. This illuminates major problems that need to be solved. But in todays world property rights means something.

So do you wanna just fall back into bartering and share everything? I think that would be pretty sweet, but it isn't gonna happen and we need to face what is ahead of us rather than try to emulate what is behind us.

And for the record, a ton of things the founding fathers said was garbage and a ton was great. Not all their ideas panned out and some turned out to be absolutely catastrophic.

Merging the past with the present isn't an easy task, but we need to create cohesive rules and regs that we can all settle on otherwise we get chaos. Chaos does have some positive effects, for sure, but in the long run it hurts us all.

So what exactly is your argument here? Because we didn't have proper IP in the past or even the knowledge and especially the infrastructure to realize IP, that we shouldn't bother now that we do have the ability to enforce it? Because it is hard and challenging to find where oral tradition fits in, we shouldn't bother? Because corruption has been rampant throughout history we should simply accept it as a fact of life and not try to find solutions? If you disagree with that, what solutions do you have in mind then?

How is my ownership of my own ideas a government monopoly? Riddle me this?


I am not against open source information, I just don't see how all things can be open source and still maintain a functionable society. People aren't gonna give up all claims and decide to just be fair, it would be nice, and maybe one day it will happen, but not today. And we need solutions for today, not 2000 years ago and not for 100 years from now. We can always change the rules as we see fit. For now, IP is fit. Besides, IP by it's very nature is temporary. Even songs become public domain after enough time. No patent is forever, but I believe I should be able to patent anything I create.

Craig Venter patenting genome sequences found in all of us, now that's going too far. That's like patenting a flower cause yu saw it first. But patenting forms.....? MA's are waaay late to the party.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Not all intellectual property is a "monopoly." For example, intellectual property includes trade secrets, which are only intellectual property until made public. Think "Coke" formula. No governmental grant of a monopoly. Further, patents are not a monopoly in the strictest sense and under the commonly understood definition. A patent gives the owner no rights, other than the right to stop others from performing the patented idea. It gives the owner no right to practice the idea as elements of his idea may be subject to an existing patent owned by others. The authority to grant a patent is contained in the US Constitution, so most framers at the time thought it was a great idea. Me too, since I make a lot of money working in the field!!!

Correct. Trade secrets are IP (not in a monopolistic sense), but they are "discoverable" by others. Again, if someone stumbled upon Coke's formula and then sold an identical product called Coka, or something, then there is no problem. The only problem that arises, from a rational-legal persepctive, is if someone discovers the formula--or something close to it--and then tries to sell you Coka as geniune "Coke." But again--that's not Coke's problem (it was in the past, however, since many people tried to defraud the public with false Coke products). It's the consumer's problem, and the consumer has the right to sue for fraud.

Now, the patent does give the patent-owner the power of aggression where no harm is leveraged in exchange. For instance, if I manage to figure out Coke's formula by playing around with flavors, then Coke retains the power to prevent me from using my goods (my flavors and my formula) for profit. I did nothing to harm them. Coke thereby obtains a property in mind, my memories, and in my physical resources. If I try to compete with Coke, then the government will shut me down by force, even though I did not threaten to harm Coke. Again--reduction of profits in the form of competition is not a form of aggression.

The patent is the medium of aggression. Government is the agent of aggression.

[Shaolin Wookie]

I love the argument about intellectual property. I find it fascinating.

Ok so I release a song, you change it slightly, change the name and re-release it... is that ok? There is huge debate about this going on right now. Lately it has been up to individual judges as to how much change makes it different enough to be something else. Most cases go for the original, but that is changing.

Why should kung fu be open source but music should not? What's the difference?

Songs should not have government protection. Many of hte artists I listen to encourage free sharing via the internet, since many of them network that way to find new listeners. I know several aspiring hip-hop artists who regularly upload music to torrent sites in order to network their songs. They don't make a dime off of their music. What you have in corporate IP law (Crony Capitalism at its worse--"Crapitalism") is a rejection of free market economics. Corporate recording studios use the government in order to keep all the profits to themselves, and to shut out competition.

This recently was a debacle for the 80's band Def Leppard. Their recording studio retained the rights to all of their original recordings. For fear of losing profits by going digitial with Itunes, etc., the studio refused to allow the old recordings to be distributed by online sellers in mp3 format. Def Leppard thought that this was retarded, and so they re-recorded all of their songs this year, taking care to sound exactly like their old recordings, and then distributed the new recordings online.

This is the insanity of IP.

When musicians and studios whine about IP, they are trying to wring every last dollar from a temporary grant of government monopoly simply b/c America's IP laws are so antiquated and irrational as to allow such practices to remain legal, when clearly patents/IP ought not to be.

Govt. monopoly is not rationally defendable, and it ought to be destroyed ASAP. Is it likely to happen? Not sure. But if Universal Healthcare (Govt. monopoly on health insurance) is a sign of anything, it's not likely to happen anytime soon.;)

[Syn7]

100% agreement here.

I started SD because my teacher was the best martial artist I saw in the area where I was looking for schools. While I wasn't necessarily looking for lineage legitimacy, I was disappointed when I found out that there was so much dishonesty as to the origins of some of the material in the system. Still, after some soul-searching, I've stayed because: 1) I didn't start for lineage legitimacy in the first place; 2) my sifu is still the best MA in the area and one of the best that I've seen period; 3) my qwoon doesn't have any marshmallows in it - we work and condition hard; 5) I find that the techniques are usable; and 6) the form volume, while ensuring that I'll never get really good at any of them, provide me with enough variation that I don't get bored practicing the techniques in a series of 8 or 9 forms.

I would like to know the real history of the system. I'd like total honesty from the old guard. I'd also like congress to be functional rather than disfunctional, but I'm not going to move out of the U.S.

So you have seen your sifu fight people from other schools or MA's? Or are you judging him one of the best you have ever seen based on solo performance and indoctrination?

Martial arts are fighting styles first. If you can't fight with it, it's just art. And nobody can say their MA is deadly until they have seen it in real action on MANY occasions against a VARIETY of opponents. Not many MA teachers can say they are great fighters. Maybe 0.001%, and that is being generous. Sure they can beat up newbies and semi-retarded thugs, but that isn't saying much.

For the record, for the right price, todays Shaolin monastery will endorse anyone. It's false, fake, bullsh1t. The real monks were killed a long time ago. The ones who survived kept the art going thru family styles which ultimately end up in the hands of guys like HSK, not Sin The.

My point is that finding a good sifu is a huge crapshoot and lineage is the only evidence you have at hand to try to see if a style is worth it's salt. By no means does lineage guarantee a good fighting style, but a fake lineage pretty much guarantees it is garbage.
A sifu with poor integrity cannot create a sifu with great integrity, just can't be done. If the student does end up being a stand up guy, it came from somewhere else.

[Shaolin Wookie]

There is nothing in the law that says you cannot play anothers music, NOTHING. It says you cannot PROFIT off other peoples IP. Do you understand the difference? If so, why do you keep mixing the two?

I'm telling you that IP doesn't exist, man. You cannot own ideas. If you're talking about a recording of a specific historical instance of music (an mp3) or a specific sequence of words, then you're falling back into the issue of using the government (a legal code of 3rd party aggression) to stop other people from distributing historical instances of music and specific sequences of words that they possess (assuming they've purchased a CD or know a song. I'm telling you that you cannot own those things, and there is no difference between humming a tune, singing it to yourself, and copying mp3s (or downloading them). You can only own the Cd's before you distribute them to consumers and the MP3's that you distribute to businesses like Itunes at the moment of making a contract. After that, you don't own anything. If I purchase a CD, it doesn't matter what the government says. I'm free to distribute MY property any way that I desire. It hurts nobody, and the government's position on this is dead-wrong because it is irrational.

To say that copying hurts the musician is false. It doesn't hurt him in the least. I don't try to stop him from selling his mp3's and CD's. He tries to stop me from distributing MY property, which I purchased FROM HIM in a reciprocal exchange (giving up money). Note that Sanyo doesn't track me down when I sell my TV on Craigslist. I profit by selling their product. I profit from my TV because I relinquish my property and ownership of a scarce resource. Music doesn't change anything.


Nobody is saying that it isn't hard to bring the old world into the new developing world we see today. It is a monumental task and now with the internet we have engaged in the largest experiment in chaos in human history. This illuminates major problems that need to be solved. But in todays world property rights means something.

Okay, but this doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't mean anything, and that no rational argument could ever defend IP without self-contradiction.


So do you wanna just fall back into bartering and share everything? I think that would be pretty sweet, but it isn't gonna happen and we need to face what is ahead of us rather than try to emulate what is behind us.

Share? No. I'm no socialist. I'm a property-rights man. You see, I don't think a musician owns any part of my CD once I purchase it. I don't care if he claims that a ghost (his ideas) live in my CD. I purchase a property right, not a "sometimes" property right in my CD. Once I own it, I own it entirely. No musician or studio should be able to claim a property in what I purchased. I didn't rent the CD. I bought it for good, and I should be able to resell that property just like I sell an old home, a used car, or an old TV.




How is my ownership of my own ideas a government monopoly? Riddle me this?

Who's going to enforce your right to exclusive ownership of your ideas, which you turned around and sold (as property) to other individuals in exchange for money?
The government, of course, at the business end of IP law.

[Shaolin Wookie]

The great irony of patents and IP is that the Federal govt. calls "file sharing" a form of piracy. It's nothing of the sort. In fact, internet file sharing is identical to a Swap Meet. You give up certain things in exchange for others. There's no more piracy in file sharing than there is in trading baseball cards. You must pay for access to certain websites; you pay for access to file sharing by contributing your media as a form of payment. "Money" is a medium of exchange, and digital media serves as that medium in file sharing scenarios. The governmetn won't recognize this argument as legally valid, since the government has a monopoly on money in the United States, and it believes that it can can set the value ("definition") of money by fiat. It even creates money out of thin air and says that it must retain its value independent of an increase in the money supply. Inflation results, but the government doesn't call what it does "inflation" (it was last called "quanitative easing") and hence the legal system will not uphold any argument that criticizes the monopoly's definitions of money.

One of hte earliest uses of "patents" was a temporary grant of government monopoly to ship captains, enabling them to loot and pillage the ships of rival countries.

There's nothing economic or rationally defendable about "patents" and IP. They're strictly govt. edicts, nothing more. Those who hold IP above our heads are the pirates. We're the prey.

If you think that we should just cope with laws as they exist in our flawed world, and not expect rationality in legal matters, then why not simply surrender ourselves up as slaves, selling our property in ourselves to irrational govt. edicts? The answer is simple: we respect property rights because they are the basis of freedom, and freedom is congereric with rationality.

Irrationality is a bane to freedom, and hence IP reigns in the US today, where irrationality seems to be the norm.

[wenshu]

Libertarian ideology in defense of some fraudulent ass martial arts is a circus act I can appreciate.

http://i.imgur.com/45XN6.jpg

*I just noticed that Ludwig Von MiSinThe here is wearing a fanny pack.

[Syn7]

Songs should not have government protection. Many of hte artists I listen to encourage free sharing via the internet, since many of them network that way to find new listeners. I know several aspiring hip-hop artists who regularly upload music to torrent sites in order to network their songs. They don't make a dime off of their music. What you have in corporate IP law (Crony Capitalism at its worse--"Crapitalism") is a rejection of free market economics. Corporate recording studios use the government in order to keep all the profits to themselves, and to shut out competition.

This recently was a debacle for the 80's band Def Leppard. Their recording studio retained the rights to all of their original recordings. For fear of losing profits by going digitial with Itunes, etc., the studio refused to allow the old recordings to be distributed by online sellers in mp3 format. Def Leppard thought that this was retarded, and so they re-recorded all of their songs this year, taking care to sound exactly like their old recordings, and then distributed the new recordings online.

This is the insanity of IP.

When musicians and studios whine about IP, they are trying to wring every last dollar from a temporary grant of government monopoly simply b/c America's IP laws are so antiquated and irrational as to allow such practices to remain legal, when clearly patents/IP ought not to be.

Govt. monopoly is not rationally defendable, and it ought to be destroyed ASAP. Is it likely to happen? Not sure. But if Universal Healthcare (Govt. monopoly on health insurance) is a sign of anything, it's not likely to happen anytime soon.;)

I'm the last person you want to have this argument with.

I am a musician, I have sold music and I have given music away. I have professional releases, not under my name, but my name is in the credits of course. I'm a producer, I make music. When I started my opinion was that an aspiring musician should give it away and consider themselves lucky if people want to hear it. But that was for promo purposes. I was making a name for myself and was in no position to make demands. It turns out that I still do a ton of work for free because it is just fun for me, I actually have a good paying day job and have no desire to be a music star. I'm happy with my local status and the respect I get from those who know me and my work. But if I had decided to make a living off it I would have had to change that. And I have put a ton of thought into it.

OK, my personal opinion is that recordings should be for promo use only and the money should come from performance. That being said, I still believe you should be able to own your work. Only I can perform MY songs unless I give permission, for money that is. You can do whatever you want with the song privately.

The reason why recordings in the last 80 years have been worth money is because it cost a ton of cash to record. Today this is not the case. With 10 grand I can buy all the gear I need to make a pro LP, no sweat. A digirack and a nice G5 with good mics and the knowledge it takes to do all this is all that is needed. 30 years ago a band was advanced tens of thousands to produce an LP and that is why the recordings were worth so much, but the ownership of masters hasn't changed at all. If you wrote the song, it's yours(unless you are selling yourself).

The reason why Mozart didn't make money off recordings is rather obvious, but he did make money off shows. And in todays world he would own his masters. Plain and simple.


If I had a dollar for every lo-fi hiphop backpack twaattt giving away music I would be rich. If they had quality, they would graduate to selling their services. Those who have less talent have to give it away if they want to be heard, it isn't some kind of moral decision, they don't have a choice cause nobody would pay for their novice crap. Plain and simple...

As far as def leopard is concerned... they didn't have to sign the contract, but they were young stupid and wanted to be rock stars. They own their songs but not the masters that the contract says the company paid for and keeps. So they had to re-record and if it wasn't for the fact that they own the songs, they couldn't have even done that. It was their IP ownership that allowed them to re record the songs.

Smart bands do not give up all rights to masters, idiots with big dreams and naive understanding of the biz do that. Especially today, more and more bands are learning that owning their work is much better than taking an advance from a major label.

[Syn7]

It's ironic that hsk is in essence accusing Jake of the exact same thing GMT did, i.e. "stealing material." I think if hsk was to try and prove the 5 Animal Form is some sort of intellectual property that Jake stole, he'd have no grounds.

There could always be agreement that Jake sucks at the form, but I don't think he say he "stole" anything.

Lawyers, thoughts?

Yeah, my thoughts are that Sin The is a hypocrite as$hole that accuses others of doing exactly what he has done. the man is a waste of space as far as MA's are concerned. And given his actions, most likely not a good man all around. Good men don't lie and steal, plain and simple.

[Syn7]

Or, what was that one.... "Tiger plays with the ball"?

No no, it is "snake creaps from two rocks" which leads to the awesome move of "snake finds honey hole"

[Syn7]

The great irony of patents and IP is that the Federal govt. calls "file sharing" a form of piracy. It's nothing of the sort. In fact, internet file sharing is identical to a Swap Meet. You give up certain things in exchange for others. There's no more piracy in file sharing than there is in trading baseball cards. You must pay for access to certain websites; you pay for access to file sharing by contributing your media as a form of payment. "Money" is a medium of exchange, and digital media serves as that medium in file sharing scenarios. The governmetn won't recognize this argument as legally valid, since the government has a monopoly on money in the United States, and it believes that it can can set the value ("definition") of money by fiat. It even creates money out of thin air and says that it must retain its value independent of an increase in the money supply. Inflation results, but the government doesn't call what it does "inflation" (it was last called "quanitative easing") and hence the legal system will not uphold any argument that criticizes the monopoly's definitions of money.

One of hte earliest uses of "patents" was a temporary grant of government monopoly to ship captains, enabling them to loot and pillage the ships of rival countries.

There's nothing economic or rationally defendable about "patents" and IP. They're strictly govt. edicts, nothing more. Those who hold IP above our heads are the pirates. We're the prey.

If you think that we should just cope with laws as they exist in our flawed world, and not expect rationality in legal matters, then why not simply surrender ourselves up as slaves, selling our property in ourselves to irrational govt. edicts? The answer is simple: we respect property rights because they are the basis of freedom, and freedom is congereric with rationality.

Irrationality is a bane to freedom, and hence IP reigns in the US today, where irrationality seems to be the norm.

Man, I have so much to say about this. Maybe it is better suited for the off topic section. I don't wanna take away from HSK's gripe. If you start a thread and paste the last responses I will pick it up there, ok. But not here. I'm only gonna talk about it as it pertains to the topic of the thread from now on. Sorry HSK, I wasn't tryna derail ya.

[wenshu]

i really don't like this guy. i really don't.

I'm not sure what to think about his use of the ending of Bloodsport as an allegory. . .

http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/web05/2011/6/9/17/anigif_not-sure-if-serious-gif-to-be-used-on-forums-22779-1307655858-12.gif



"'Mr Dukes, you fought with inspiriation"

And so my friends out there watching remember that kung fu and life <pauses, looks off camera at cue card> doesn't have to be a bloodsport."

http://i.imgur.com/EtTjM.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/0vjgy.gif

[Syn7]

i'm done talking about this fool. i'm making my first video blog on this form to set the story straight.

carry ob gentleman....carry on

Nah, I'm more interested in your video response to jake. I wanna see how long it takes to bait this kid. He's at the fake high road stage. The next stage is "I couldn't be bothered to respond" but worry not my friend, the stage after that is pure comedy!!! :D Keep manipulatin'...

[Syn7]

you know i'm gonna do it. and did you see that fantasy sh1t he said???

Yeah he's a d0rk. No question. I thik he actually believes he's in a higher state. Of course he would deny this, but his speach made it quite clear. He thinks he's the man. lol Priceless sh1t.

Take your time, keep it hillarious.

[Jimbo]

i really don't like this guy. i really don't.

I tried to watch this the whole way through but couldn't. He could have at least kept his cue cards closer to the camera. After the first five times I was too distracted by his looking off to the side, and it made his message come across as weak. Or rather, weakER.

[Old Noob]

So you have seen your sifu fight people from other schools or MA's? Or are you judging him one of the best you have ever seen based on solo performance and indoctrination?

Martial arts are fighting styles first. If you can't fight with it, it's just art. And nobody can say their MA is deadly until they have seen it in real action on MANY occasions against a VARIETY of opponents. Not many MA teachers can say they are great fighters. Maybe 0.001%, and that is being generous. Sure they can beat up newbies and semi-retarded thugs, but that isn't saying much.

For the record, for the right price, todays Shaolin monastery will endorse anyone. It's false, fake, bullsh1t. The real monks were killed a long time ago. The ones who survived kept the art going thru family styles which ultimately end up in the hands of guys like HSK, not Sin The.

My point is that finding a good sifu is a huge crapshoot and lineage is the only evidence you have at hand to try to see if a style is worth it's salt. By no means does lineage guarantee a good fighting style, but a fake lineage pretty much guarantees it is garbage.
A sifu with poor integrity cannot create a sifu with great integrity, just can't be done. If the student does end up being a stand up guy, it came from somewhere else.

Fair points and questions but don't mischaracterize what I said. I didn't say that my teacher was deadly or that I was. I said he was the best martial artist I saw in my search and one of the best that I've seen. I also said that I found that the techniques work, not that they're deadly - of course I've not seen anyone killed with them.

My clarifications notwithstanding, your questions are still fair. I'm the first person to admit that I'm not the most experienced martial artist. I've boxed some, wrestled for years, took longfist for about a year and a half from a very respected teacher in high school and then didn't do martial arts again, with the exception of Army combatives, until I got divorced over a decade later. That's when I took up SD; that was about 4 and a half years ago. I have not seen my teacher in anything approaching a real fight. I'll say this though. My opinion is based on me comparing him to other martial artists I've trained with and met in the past and the present. While my teacher doesn't mix it up much with other styles, I, like JP used to do, touch hands with folks from other styles when I'm given the opportunity. Despite the fact that I outweigh my sifu by more than 50 pounds, he gives me more trouble than anyone else I mix it up with; with the one exception being a western martial artist who's been training since he was 13 in one thing or another. That's how I arrive at my opinion of his quality as a practitioner and on the usefulness of the system as a fighting system. I'll continue to develop that opinion as my experiences broaden. I'm starting judo this month, which I know is 180 degrees from CMA (that's why I'm adding it). But we'll see if my opinion of my Sifu as a martial artist will change. I think its unlikely.

[Old Noob]

theres one thing better than clowning the clown jake mace.

TITTY SPRINKLES!


http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7r87lfvbd1qbc0buo1_1343283579_cover.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZbK2JQ_cR4

I wonder how many more views Jake is getting on youtube thanks to the publicity you're giving him.

[UCT]

No. If you can figure out the formula for Coca Cola, you are free to sell the identical drink. Coke does not have a patent on the formula and cannot stop you from selling the product. They have a trade secret and they could only stop you if you illegally acquired the formula, for example by paying an employee to steal it. However, Coke does have a trademark on the words Coke and Coca Cola, so you cannot call your product Coke or Coca Cola, but you can sell the same product and call it whatever you want and you cannot be stopped.

The same is true of martial arts. There is no IP protection for ancient techniques. It is not theft or stealing to copy them. Sorry to those whose feelings are now hurt.


Correct. Trade secrets are IP (not in a monopolistic sense), but they are "discoverable" by others. Again, if someone stumbled upon Coke's formula and then sold an identical product called Coka, or something, then there is no problem. The only problem that arises, from a rational-legal persepctive, is if someone discovers the formula--or something close to it--and then tries to sell you Coka as geniune "Coke." But again--that's not Coke's problem (it was in the past, however, since many people tried to defraud the public with false Coke products). It's the consumer's problem, and the consumer has the right to sue for fraud.

Now, the patent does give the patent-owner the power of aggression where no harm is leveraged in exchange. For instance, if I manage to figure out Coke's formula by playing around with flavors, then Coke retains the power to prevent me from using my goods (my flavors and my formula) for profit. I did nothing to harm them. Coke thereby obtains a property in mind, my memories, and in my physical resources. If I try to compete with Coke, then the government will shut me down by force, even though I did not threaten to harm Coke. Again--reduction of profits in the form of competition is not a form of aggression.

The patent is the medium of aggression. Government is the agent of aggression.

[Old Noob]

No. If you can figure out the formula for Coca Cola, you are free to sell the identical drink. Coke does not have a patent on the formula and cannot stop you from selling the product. They have a trade secret and they could only stop you if you illegally acquired the formula, for example by paying an employee to steal it. However, Coke does have a trademark on the words Coke and Coca Cola, so you cannot call your product Coke or Coca Cola, but you can sell the same product and call it whatever you want and you cannot be stopped.

The same is true of martial arts. There is no IP protection for ancient techniques. It is not theft or stealing to copy them. Sorry to those whose feelings are now hurt.

Right! Coke has a trademark but not a patent, meaning, as I understand it, that you could market an identical product but you can't call it Coke.

UTC - I have a question - what about cover bands? Are they okay because they're not claiming to be the original artist even though they are playing, to varying levels of faithfulness to the original, the same songs or is it a technial violation that simply flies under the radar? What about well-known tribute bands?

[UCT]

Sorry, there is no one right answer re cover bands. Case by case basis.


Right! Coke has a trademark but not a patent, meaning, as I understand it, that you could market an identical product but you can't call it Coke.

UTC - I have a question - what about cover bands? Are they okay because they're not claiming to be the original artist even though they are playing, to varying levels of faithfulness to the original, the same songs or is it a technial violation that simply flies under the radar? What about well-known tribute bands?

[Judge Pen]

True, perhaps, but only as far as you know---about the "stealing" of course.

Now, let's say that I am a remarkable MA with great talents in fighting. Now suppose that Jake Mace teaches me his Tiger-Crane form, flawed as it is, and I decide that I can re-tailor the form far better than he does the form. I now have a 3rd form, twice removed from DFW's lineage. Which is the best of the 3 forms that then exist?

Is the 1st form the best one because it was the first form? Does it retain its "best" status simply because it was the first? Is it the best because you hit the right "markers"? Body mechanics always matter, but what if I apply, say, tai chi concepts to your tiger-crane form and wind up with a devastating martial art? What is the standard that you apply? If you accept that there are certain standards that do apply, then what standards might also apply (which you currently do not apply b/c you follow your lineage)? It's a dead end argument, whichever way you try to turn it. Forms are forms--nothing more, and it doesn't matter who taught them or how. It matters what you can do with them.

I think you've just described how a new martial art evolves. People all learn how to do things there own way. Some people honor the past by preserving it but some people honor the past by improving on it (at least as it relates to that individual and his new environment).

I heard a story of a martial artist that came to California from China several decades ago. After having an opportunity to be forced to defend himself, he found that certain techniques, specifically certain open hand strikes, were not as effective against his assailants because they were bigger and stronger than he was used to. So he starting employing more closed handed strikes and replacing them in the techniques and forms he was previoulsy taught. Did he honor his teachers in doing so? Of course he did. If you can take a form and make it work, then good for you. Frank's point is that you should at least give proper credence and respect to where the material originally came from even if you changed it.

[Judge Pen]

I enjoyed the brief discussion about tiger claw.

Here's an alternate proposal: tiger claw is not tight/compact at all but is meant for striking with the fingertips (assuming proper conditioning of course). So to strike like this and get maximum strength/stability of the fingers, you would not hit with the heel of the hand but would have your fingers splayed out similar to doing a fingertip pushup.

Thoughts?

I've heard people discuss that concept. I just think it's easier to create an effective striking surface with the ball and heel of the hand then to condition the fingers to the point they would be that effective.

[Syn7]

No. If you can figure out the formula for Coca Cola, you are free to sell the identical drink. Coke does not have a patent on the formula and cannot stop you from selling the product. They have a trade secret and they could only stop you if you illegally acquired the formula, for example by paying an employee to steal it. However, Coke does have a trademark on the words Coke and Coca Cola, so you cannot call your product Coke or Coca Cola, but you can sell the same product and call it whatever you want and you cannot be stopped.

The same is true of martial arts. There is no IP protection for ancient techniques. It is not theft or stealing to copy them. Sorry to those whose feelings are now hurt.

The coke analogy isn't very apt. I think the music analogy is far more appropriate. With music you have a physical disc that has one set of rules with trademarked labeling and packaging and then you have the music recordings which fall under different rules and then you have the IP as far as whoever wrote the song owns the song. You can buy a CD and re-sell it, you can re-record public domain music and sell it in your own package but you can NOT re-record another persons song for commercial purposes without permission no matter how you package it.

Nothing stopping you from learning the song and playing it with your friends. But selling it is a no no.

I think MA's should have similar guidelines. The only trouble will be in the vetting process and figuring out what came from where and when. MA's are a clusterfukc of unprofessional chaos. It would be a monumental, probably impossible task to incorporate all MA`s into legal framework. A good first step would be to start with the newest and work backwards. Not everyone will be interested in legally protecting their heritage and/or art, but some will and should be able to do so.

If I create a curriculum with new ideas I should be able to protect those ideas.


As far as open source is concerned, I love the concept. But it should be a choice. Forcing it defeats the whole purpose of open source co-operation. Open source cancer research is a perfect example. Clearly we would be better off if the majors would share too, but it needs to be done willingly. It`s an evolution that should not be sped up with forced legalities.

[UCT]

I think MA's should have similar guidelines. The only trouble will be in the vetting process and figuring out what came from where and when. MA's are a clusterfukc of unprofessional chaos. It would be a monumental, probably impossible task to incorporate all MA`s into legal framework. A good first step would be to start with the newest and work backwards. Not everyone will be interested in legally protecting their heritage and/or art, but some will and should be able to do so.
.

As I said before, you can't protect any martial art technique publicly performed before 1978. Copyright law did not apply to choreography (the method The attempted to use to protect "his" forms) before that date and all choreography displayed before that date is in the public domain. It is highly debatable whether it is protectable even if it was developed after that date as anything with a function cannot be copyrighted. Unless you claim that the forms are purely for entertainment purposes, but of course that seems to be a concession the form is not really martial arts.

[Syn7]

UTC - I have a question - what about cover bands? Are they okay because they're not claiming to be the original artist even though they are playing, to varying levels of faithfulness to the original, the same songs or is it a technial violation that simply flies under the radar? What about well-known tribute bands?




Sorry, there is no one right answer re cover bands. Case by case basis.

Ummm, no...

If you want to play other peoples songs and sell it, you have to pay. many don't, they take their chances. Illegal, either way.

As far as a cover band or a DJ playing records, Clubs pay a "blanket" fee. Or at least they are supposed to. Like in the US you could go through the Harry Fox Agency.

If you are more interested in learning about ASCAP BMI SOCAN etc etc, a kung fu site isn't the place for it. LOL.
But if you have more questions about music rights I would be happy to answer. I actually know about this thru life experience. I am a SOCAN and ASCAP member and I am collecting royalties. This UCT cat is not as knowledgeable as he wants you to think he is when it comes to music rights. His answer about cover bands was plain wrong. Not that a judge cant overrule or pervert the law. But the rules are pretty clear in this respect, whether you agree or not.

[Syn7]

As I said before, you can't protect any martial art technique publicly performed before 1978. Copyright law did not apply to choreography (the method The attempted to use to protect "his" forms) before that date and all choreography displayed before that date is in the public domain. It is highly debatable whether it is protectable even if it was developed after that date as anything with a function cannot be copyrighted. Unless you claim that the forms are purely for entertainment purposes, but of course that seems to be a concession the form is not really martial arts.

I was writing about what I would like to see. Not what is. What we have now is insane. Surely you can understand the difference between what I would like to see and what is, no?

[UCT]

Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. Some songs are not copyrighted. Therefore not illegal to play without payment. No competent lawyer is going to give an absolute opinion on a hypothetical question like was posed, where the outcome isn't certain.


Ummm, no...

If you want to play other peoples songs and sell it, you have to pay. many don't, they take their chances. Illegal, either way.

As far as a cover band or a DJ playing records, Clubs pay a "blanket" fee. Or at least they are supposed to. Like in the US you could go through the Harry Fox Agency.

If you are more interested in learning about ASCAP BMI SOCAN etc etc, a kung fu site isn't the place for it. LOL.
But if you have more questions about music rights I would be happy to answer. I actually know about this thru life experience. I am a SOCAN and ASCAP member and I am collecting royalties. This UCT cat is not as knowledgeable as he wants you to think he is when it comes to music rights. His answer about cover bands was plain wrong. Not that a judge cant overrule or pervert the law. But the rules are pretty clear in this respect, whether you agree or not.

[stoic]

A legal discussion on the Kung Fu Forum?

Read this and then consult a real lawyer in your jurisdiction for actual IP questions and advice:

http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/

:)

[One student]

Your youtube video comparing Jake Mace and your Grandmaster is interesting. I always like to find out where material is coming from, and how it was learned.

There are some problems, of course, with your argument.

#1 In a free market, we don't care if your Grandmaster Salvatero or whatever pulled the form out of his ass and called it a grandchild. What kind of "permission" does one need to pretend to be a tiger/crane? The form is hardly "strictly combat" and contains a lot of showy movements. Are you saying that your Grandmaster owns something that you learn--something that you put into your head? ?Your grandmaster owns your mind and its contents? If I memorize a poem by John Milton, does John Milton (who is dead 400 years) own the info in my head. If so, how? I do lots of one-legged squats, but I don't know the form. So must I ask permission of Grandmaster Salvatero if I do one-legged squats and pretend I'm a crane? Just silly.;)

This is why intellectual property is such a stupid idea. According to your rationale, I ought to be paying royalties (or homage) to the first half-man half-ape somewhere in the line of time who built a lean-to in some remote forest simply for the fact that I live under a roof today. Why not, according to your logic?

#2 Any competent martial artist could, in theory, learn a form from a book or a video. I don't consider it a good idea, simply for the fact that "forms" aren't that important when judged beside actual martial skills. But if I did know a tiger-crane form years ago, but forgot it when I....oh, I don't know...moved to Kentucky from Bandung, then would it be such a crime to fill in the blanks using a book or a video?

If this doesn't sound so outlandish, then the real question once again boils down to the problem of intellectual property and its legitimacy.

I'm going to suggest that the debate over who's forms they are and who can show/teach them misses that there are at least two ways to look at it. Depending on which you are applying, both have merit.

One, is a modern/commercial way. I show/publish a form, other people pay for and get it, is it now theirs, and can the publisher/teacher claim any right otherwise? This is where all the patenting and intellectual property issues come in. And many a person (on this forum and others) have critized GMT for trying to use litigation to prevent exactly what HSK is complaining about Jake doing with "his" School's material. Under this theory, those on this forum who have stated that once the material is published, taught, commercially distributed, it is difficult if not impossible to control its dissemination, or complain about it, are completely correct.

The other way is maybe a more traditional concept. At one time in history, was it not true that a martial artist would accept a student, and after a period of determing the degree of loyalty and dedication that student had, they may become a disciple. And there is, I always thought, then an implied agreement, an implied committment, that the gift of the instruction that teacher gave to that student/disciple, would not be abused, and would not be re-taught without the teacher's consent or permission. The student would ask for permission from his/her teacher, and when the teacher deemed it time, that consent would be given -- or not. No contracts, no courts. And if the student violated that implied understanding, such as by opening a competing school, the senior disciple of the school might pay a visit to the "renegade" and straighten things out.

In that "traditional" concept, the implied agreement and understanding is betrayed. Thus, the "renegade" is labeled as "stealing" the material and disseminating it behind the teacher's back. Under this theory, HSK is correct, and one should not, while still being honorable, disseminate what they have been given, or get some one's material and pass it off as their own, or at least pass it off as something it isn't or that it came from somewhere it didn't. It is a matter then of honor and respect, not "legality."

But there is, as far as I can tell, no modern legal basis to enforce such an implied understanding of honor and respect, or even if, in these modern times, the teacher actually expects it (which is hard to do from a book or video), or the student goes in with the reciprocal understanding: "Thank you for your instruction, I will respect your teaching by protecting and respecting what you have taught me." Or when its time to make their own buck, "FU, I'm going renegade." Can't very well, when putting it in a book or video, or even mass marketing by seminars open to almost anyone, then expect much of a guarantee it will not go out to others.

And as we all know, honor and respect for traditions has to be self-imposed. Kind of changes the "traditional" teacher-student relationship, doesn't it, if when the student walks in the door to ask for lessons, after paying the fee has to sign a contract agreeing that whatever they learn will not be taught to others without written permission? When I first started taking martial arts, it was unheard of, very rare, that a student would go out and open a competing school without permission, without serious consequences. I knew brothers who had falling-outs for just that reason.

Does it not come down to what someone else said, and I can't remember who to give credit to, that there is a difference between a mere customer, and a student. Which do you want to be?

[One student]

The great irony of patents and IP is that the Federal govt. calls "file sharing" a form of piracy. It's nothing of the sort. In fact, internet file sharing is identical to a Swap Meet. You give up certain things in exchange for others. There's no more piracy in file sharing than there is in trading baseball cards. You must pay for access to certain websites; you pay for access to file sharing by contributing your media as a form of payment. "Money" is a medium of exchange, and digital media serves as that medium in file sharing scenarios. The governmetn won't recognize this argument as legally valid, since the government has a monopoly on money in the United States, and it believes that it can can set the value ("definition") of money by fiat. It even creates money out of thin air and says that it must retain its value independent of an increase in the money supply. Inflation results, but the government doesn't call what it does "inflation" (it was last called "quanitative easing") and hence the legal system will not uphold any argument that criticizes the monopoly's definitions of money.

One of the earliest uses of "patents" was a temporary grant of government monopoly to ship captains, enabling them to loot and pillage the ships of rival countries.

There's nothing economic or rationally defendable about "patents" and IP. They're strictly govt. edicts, nothing more. Those who hold IP above our heads are the pirates. We're the prey.

If you think that we should just cope with laws as they exist in our flawed world, and not expect rationality in legal matters, then why not simply surrender ourselves up as slaves, selling our property in ourselves to irrational govt. edicts? The answer is simple: we respect property rights because they are the basis of freedom, and freedom is congereric with rationality.

Irrationality is a bane to freedom, and hence IP reigns in the US today, where irrationality seems to be the norm.

This is now more economics, and maybe politics, than it is martial arts, but isn't the theoretical point of patents and IP, is that Man is more likely to be more entreprenurial, inventive, and innovative, if they know they have a protected interest in what they invent, innovate, or create? A big criticism of non-capitalist countries, and the big support of captilism, is the "profit motive" is what fuels progress, and without it, technology and everything else stagnates.

Yes, it presupposes that human nature is lazy and greedy and not altruistic. But isn't that at least the theoretical basis for protecting IP by patent/copyrights?

Doesn't really seem to be a concept applicable to tradional martial arts, until you add in the "profit motive." Then it is a different animal (pardon the pun). Then it seems it should be just a protectable as any other creation, innovation, or invention: if that is what it is. I can republish a work that the copyright has expired, and even sell it (such as the Bible, Shakespeare, etc.), but I can't photocopy someone else's publication of it and resell it.

[One student]

Fair points and questions but don't mischaracterize what I said. I didn't say that my teacher was deadly or that I was. I said he was the best martial artist I saw in my search and one of the best that I've seen. I also said that I found that the techniques work, not that they're deadly - of course I've not seen anyone killed with them.

My clarifications notwithstanding, your questions are still fair. I'm the first person to admit that I'm not the most experienced martial artist. I've boxed some, wrestled for years, took longfist for about a year and a half from a very respected teacher in high school and then didn't do martial arts again, with the exception of Army combatives, until I got divorced over a decade later. That's when I took up SD; that was about 4 and a half years ago. I have not seen my teacher in anything approaching a real fight. I'll say this though. My opinion is based on me comparing him to other martial artists I've trained with and met in the past and the present. While my teacher doesn't mix it up much with other styles, I, like JP used to do, touch hands with folks from other styles when I'm given the opportunity. Despite the fact that I outweigh my sifu by more than 50 pounds, he gives me more trouble than anyone else I mix it up with; with the one exception being a western martial artist who's been training since he was 13 in one thing or another. That's how I arrive at my opinion of his quality as a practitioner and on the usefulness of the system as a fighting system. I'll continue to develop that opinion as my experiences broaden. I'm starting judo this month, which I know is 180 degrees from CMA (that's why I'm adding it). But we'll see if my opinion of my Sifu as a martial artist will change. I think its unlikely.

If I know anything, I think I know that I don't know how good a fighter I am, by forms or even by sparring, even professional fighting sports. One will only know how good (or bad) a fighter they are, when they get in a fight. On the street (or in the field of battle). When someone is trying to hurt you or someone else, and you have to fight back. Until then, you do not know. Even then, you might not know, as I also believe that any person can get a good lick in, can be lucky, and beat someone who is a better "fighter."

But we train so that if that happens, we are as prepared as we can be.

[One student]

I think you've just described how a new martial art evolves. People all learn how to do things there own way. Some people honor the past by preserving it but some people honor the past by improving on it (at least as it relates to that individual and his new environment).

I heard a story of a martial artist that came to California from China several decades ago. After having an opportunity to be forced to defend himself, he found that certain techniques, specifically certain open hand strikes, were not as effective against his assailants because they were bigger and stronger than he was used to. So he starting employing more closed handed strikes and replacing them in the techniques and forms he was previoulsy taught. Did he honor his teachers in doing so? Of course he did. If you can take a form and make it work, then good for you. Frank's point is that you should at least give proper credence and respect to where the material originally came from even if you changed it.

And he didn't know the weakness of his technique by many years of practice, only by having to do it. My uncle was advanced rank in traditional karate, used to tell me all the elders of his school were wise enought to know they could never fight each other, because they were afraid one of them would accidentally kill or seriously injure the other because they didn't know how good their offense was, or how bad their defense was.

[Syn7]

Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. Some songs are not copyrighted. Therefore not illegal to play without payment. No competent lawyer is going to give an absolute opinion on a hypothetical question like was posed, where the outcome isn't certain.

Well of course we're talking about copyrighted material. Don't be so obtuse. I don't think it was something that needed to be specified. There is no doubt as to what the question was. He wasn't asking for professional advice, it was a simple question about the legalities of playing covers in public. Stop backpedaling, son. The whole point of this argument is to talk about ownership or lack thereof. Why would he ask if he needs permission to play unheard of copyrighted material? Unless he's a moron, he did not need to specify as the context of the thread is more than enough. Besides, who wants to cover songs nobody has ever heard? Also, to be thorough, I did cover public domain in my post.

oldnoob,
You can take the info from somebody who has actually been involved for years, or an armchair lawyer out of his depth. Up to you. Infact, 30 seconds of google will tell you who is right and who is wrong. Check out the harry fox agency. Even a wikisearch should be enough to make some confirmations.

[Syn7]

A legal discussion on the Kung Fu Forum?

Read this and then consult a real lawyer in your jurisdiction for actual IP questions and advice:

http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/

:)

Looks like it could be pretty funny. I can imagine the issues filmmakers go thru. Sample clearance can be a motherfukcer. Personally, I've slipped a few through, so far so good. When I was younger I was quite defiant and sold quite a bit of copyrighted material under the radar. Some we had to clear after the fact and some we cleared beforehand in order to avoid what we saw as inevitable. It really comes down to exposure. If you wanna sell CD's out the trunk with no bar code, don't bother clearing. Even if you do get hit with suit, you couldn't have sold that many LP's anyways. Just keep in mind, if you blow up you could face real sanctions. It's always a risk and it is stealing.

As far as legal advice is concerned, if you have serious questions that affect your life, by all means, talk to a real lawyer IN YOUR AREA.

If all you are is curious as to what cover bands need in order to play in public, like I said before, a simple google search will tell you more than enough to satisfy your curiosity.

It's usually on the venue. Even a jukebox technically needs clearance.

[Syn7]

.........the elders of his school were wise enought to know they could never fight each other, because they were afraid one of them would accidentally kill or seriously injure the other because they didn't know how good their offense was, or how bad their defense was.

In my experience I find the latter is the most common. It's alot harder to avoid getting damaged than it is to inflict damage.

[Empty_Cup]

So here are the arguments as I understand it:

1) Lau Bun's lineage teaches the 5 Animal Form. Purportedly, the form was taught only to Lau Bun by his sifu's wife.

2) Doc Fai Wong, a student in the lineage of Lau Bun, was taught the form and published a book and publicly demonstrated the form while a recording was made.

3) In the book and during the public demonstration, "markers" were put into the form which caused it to be different from the original form.

4) Jake Mace/Rydberg learned the form (either via Shaolin Do, DFW's book, or both) and began teaching it as part of his school. Jake does not credit a source for the material as anything within the Lau Bun lineage.

5) By teaching the "marked" version of the form, Jake is stealing the material from the Lau Bun lineage.

If I've understood the above correctly, I have a couple questions from there:

- Is there any evidence other than 2nd/3rd-hand accounts of what the actual form looked like when originally passed from Lau Bun's sifu's wife to him? What about from Lau Bun to Doc Fai Wong? Were there no changes made during the transmission?

- When DFW published the book/made the recording, did he state that those who purchased the book could not re-perform the form? Is Jake's performance of the form exactly the same as DFW's form in the book or the recording? If not, then can it really be considered the same material?

[Syn7]

If I go on TV and play a really bad version of Let it be, does that mean I shouldn't have to pay?

Unfortunately most MA's are light years behind the law.

Also, we shouldn't confuse the differing positions in this thread with eachother. Some feel it's ok to do the forms and even sell the forms if you give credit where it's do. Others feel forms are IP and should be covered as such.

And yes, it's beyond pathetic that Sin The would take somebody to court for doing what he did himself. That is one major reason why he is a douchebag.

HSK already said he can't prove what the original form looked like.


HSK: you never answered my question. Was it DFW in the vid?

[bodhi warrior]

that summed it up for me right there.

now here is my response to the whole situation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Pc912aP1A

(caution, i do start cussing towards the end)

I think Sin The' lives is California now. I don't have any contact info though. It would be cool if you could find him and discuss this one on one.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Well of course we're talking about copyrighted material. Don't be so obtuse. I don't think it was something that needed to be specified. There is no doubt as to what the question was. He wasn't asking for professional advice, it was a simple question about the legalities of playing covers in public. Stop backpedaling, son. The whole point of this argument is to talk about ownership or lack thereof. Why would he ask if he needs permission to play unheard of copyrighted material? Unless he's a moron, he did not need to specify as the context of the thread is more than enough. Besides, who wants to cover songs nobody has ever heard? Also, to be thorough, I did cover public domain in my post.

oldnoob,
You can take the info from somebody who has actually been involved for years, or an armchair lawyer out of his depth. Up to you. Infact, 30 seconds of google will tell you who is right and who is wrong. Check out the harry fox agency. Even a wikisearch should be enough to make some confirmations.

How can anyone own the right to copy? Here's my point: IP cannot be rationally defended, because it requries a property right that inteferes with the property rights of third parties. In other words, IP requires the violation of property rights in principle.

Some musician sells me his CD or mp3 via a middle-man. That middle-man (Itunes, the recording studio, etc) tells me that I can't copy the thing that I buy. Only he or the musician can copy that material. If I do copy it and distribute it for profit, I violate a federal statute and copyright law. That's the law, as you said. Now, please explain to me how can anyone own the right to copy? In order to copyright mateiral, someone has to own (1) my copying materials, (2) the material copied, and (3) my freedom to copy material. I bought the computer that I copy material with, I own the CD / mp3 that I paid for, and (3) I am free to copy that material. The only thing that stops me is the government's IP goonsquads. What is the rational justification for this, except that some musician and recording studio wish to interfere with my freedom in order to maximize profits by shutting out competitors? It's crony capitalism, pat.

B/C there is no rational justification for IP, then no pro-IP arguments can depend upon rational argumentation for their support.

Hence, you don't have to defend your position on IP. The government does it for you, and you have no recourse to reason b/c IP makes no sense. It's just hte law.

[Syn7]

there is really nothing in existence to compare this shaolin form to. sure, the techniques within it are shared by other northern styles. but NOT the sequences of the form. nothing of the kind exists outside of this form.

And the sequence IS the art in MA. Like with music, you cannot own a guitar sound. But you can own the rights to an arrangement of sounds which would apply to all instruments. Just coz I wrote it for a guitar and you adapt it to piano doesn't mean it is different or yours. at the very least, from a moral standpoint, you should at least give credit where credit is due when you are taking other peoples ideas, whether you build on them or not.

[Syn7]

How can anyone own the right to copy? Here's my point: IP cannot be rationally defended, because it requries a property right that inteferes with the property rights of third parties. In other words, IP requires the violation of property rights in principle.

Some musician sells me his CD or mp3 via a middle-man. That middle-man (Itunes, the recording studio, etc) tells me that I can't copy the thing that I buy. Only he or the musician can copy that material. If I do copy it and distribute it for profit, I violate a federal statute and copyright law. That's the law, as you said. Now, please explain to me how can anyone own the right to copy? In order to copyright mateiral, someone has to own (1) my copying materials, (2) the material copied, and (3) my freedom to copy material. I bought the computer that I copy material with, I own the CD / mp3 that I paid for, and (3) I am free to copy that material. The only thing that stops me is the government's IP goonsquads. What is the rational justification for this, except that some musician and recording studio wish to interfere with my freedom in order to maximize profits by shutting out competitors? It's crony capitalism, pat.

B/C there is no rational justification for IP, then no pro-IP arguments can depend upon rational argumentation for their support.

Hence, you don't have to defend your position on IP. The government does it for you, and you have no recourse to reason b/c IP makes no sense. It's just hte law.

Look, I'll keep this short and simple. If you don't agree with IP as a concept, fine. Let's not get confused here, I am having multiple conversations at one time and you people take one response from one thing and assume it is something else. I'll make this clear.

For those who do agree with IP as a concept for anything, you have to apply it to everything. You can't say "he can own this idea but not that one." Either all is equal under the law or it's wrong. There are a ton of laws I disagree with. That's not what was being discussed. Me saying that something is the law does not mean I agree, and me saying what I want to become law should not be confused with what I am saying is law.

For those who do not agree with IP as a concept, this is a different conversation all together. I am not a capitalist at heart. But we live in a capitalist world, and a capitalist world without IP is giving too much power to those with the most money. We are flawed and we sell our ideas too cheap and for peanuts to those who seek to control, this is a fact of life for us. But that isn't a legal issue, it's a social one. Again, a whole different conversation. Legal framework is designed to guide the culture, but should never be considered a cure for social ills. If we wern't d1ckheads to eachother most laws would be useless.

And if you want to talk about what should, or could be, that is a different conversation as well.

It's silly to quote a response that is specifically directed towards a convo you weren't a part of to further a point that wasn't part of the conversation.

I get it, you don't agree with IP, who you trying to convince here? Repeating it over and over won't change its reception.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Look, I'll keep this short and simple. If you don't agree with IP as a concept, fine.

Okay. Cool, I'll drop the subject. I just think it's a very interesting and relevant one, considering someone accused an SD guy of "theft" for choreography, and "theft" is a property rights issue.




I am not a capitalist at heart. But we live in a capitalist world, and a capitalist world without IP is giving too much power to those with the most money.

Had to address this issue in passing. There is no such thing BUT capitalism. Either private individuals own the means of production, or else the State (public) owns the means of production (be it the "people" of a democratic State or a totalitarian dictator). There is no third option. There is private property and then there is public property. There is free capitalism (private property), and then there is State capitalism (which is socialism, and this is public property). You can either vote for representatives who will violate private property on your behalf, or else you can have a guy dictate the terms of expropriation. I prefer not having anyone violate property rights.

To say that you're not capitalist at heart means that you prefer government ownership at heart. As a musician (a private creator), I would think you'd prefer private ownership. IP just happens to be socialist at heart--the creator of music claims ownership in another person's property. Like I said--this last kind of ownership is the denotation of piracy, and it only holds up in court because the government says so--and for no other reason. And the government tends to think that everything belongs to the State--just look at the recent DNC flub this week: "Government is the only thing we all belong to." LOL (though, the RNC said the same thing with different rhetoric, swaddled in patriotism).

Sorry. I just find the subject fascinating.;)

[Shaolin Wookie]

LEt's change the name of the thread:


Is Shaolin-Do criminally liable?

[wenshu]

Libertarian ideology; reasoning itself into an oversimplified, completely divorced from reality fantasy world in defense of fraudulent martial arts since page 938.

[Empty_Cup]

If this thread makes it to 1,000 pages now, it's because we have FRANK TO THANK!

How can we leave out folks like mkriii and The Willow Sword? :D

[Syn7]

Interesting vid that IMO is all about IP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ6Q3BfbVBU&feature=player_embedded


sorry, havent read ur response yet, i will tho.... im still stuck in the youtubeverse.

Defense Distributed... the scary side of freedom or a simple step in our evolution to be free.

Personally, I believe we should all have guns. ALL of us. But if anyone wants to really go there, start aN IP thread in off topic.

[bodhi warrior]

that summed it up for me right there.

now here is my response to the whole situation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Pc912aP1A

(caution, i do start cussing towards the end)

I have a question about marking the 5 animal form. Doc fai Wong offers a distance learning program which the 5 animal form is a part of. My question is, why would he teach his distance students with this marked DVD if it isn't the way it is taught in person?

[bodhi warrior]

'

if you were not a direct student of mine and its possible i will never see you again, or if you never come to me for corrections, i would give these types of people a VERSION of the original too. how do we know after we give you something we consider to be a treasure you're not going to do what JAKE THE SNAKE or SIN THE did? these are called "PRECAUTIONS" and comes with just GIVING stuff away to people who are not in front of you.

if its still unclear, if i taught you something then you turned around and claimed you created it, take all the credit for it, or even alter its historical value that would be FUKKED UP right? so why would i take this chance with someone i may never see in my life?

Cool. I was just curious. I liked your video blog by the way.

[Syn7]

I have a question about marking the 5 animal form. Doc fai Wong offers a distance learning program which the 5 animal form is a part of. My question is, why would he teach his distance students with this marked DVD if it isn't the way it is taught in person?

Markers are simply a way of tracking lineage and also have the added bonus of exposing frauds. But their original purpose was to track and protect. Some masters would teach one version to outsiders and another to those who he will leave the lineage to after his death. Some would teach a slightly different version to ALL students(assuming he doesn't have a ton of students).

My sifu has shown me a form one day then shows me a different version the next. He says both are correct and both have their reasons. After hearing the explanations you start to see why they would do this.

[Syn7]

Sorry, I should have been more specific about the capitalism thing.

Happy to clear that up in the OFF TOPIC forum. Make the thread and we can have a wonderfully fascinating conversation about the affects of IP on our society.

I would really like to talk about an economy where everyone has access to 3d printing and access to free specs for products. this is an engineers dream man. To fab my own parts in one solid block with cavitues but no seams, hell motherfukcing yeah!!!

500 bucks? I'm all over it. In fact, I think I'll start learning the software now.

[Syn7]

here.........


Yeah, I watched a dude print a human kidney awhile ago. Never seen a PERFECT human kindey before. Not approved yet, but if all is well you can print new organs to replace damaged organs. Waiting for FDA approval. Prolly about 10 years before regular commercial availability. Getting close to human testing, 3 or 4 years it looks like.

[Syn7]

Yeah, I'll admit, that one bothered me. I hate it when I see my own spelling mistakes(often), but usually don't care about others.

Phonics with multiple meanings always annoy me in print when wrong. Their there, hear here, wait weight etc etc... My punctuation is usually pretty rough. I'm sure it hasn't gone un-noticed by all but Drake. I remember when I was in the early grades I did really well in every class except grammar. It kept me off the honor role(that one's for you HSK) one semester.

[Empty_Cup]

For those of you that got the privilege to train directly with SM Bob Green, what was it about his skill in the animal systems that you can share? What was the most impactful lesson you learned from him?

I've always heard he had a unique insight into the expression and would like to know more.

[Old Noob]

I have a question about marking the 5 animal form. Doc fai Wong offers a distance learning program which the 5 animal form is a part of. My question is, why would he teach his distance students with this marked DVD if it isn't the way it is taught in person?

The more I read about the traditional CMA culture, the more I think its a farce to tie traditional notions of loyalty, honor, etc. to it. People talk about respecting teachers and stealing material and propogating false markers. . .

But, the markers exist because the teacher, the person profiting from the dissemination of the material, is lying to the purchaser. The boards are full of stories about how their teachers and masters would take on students for profit and teach them watered down techniques; saving their "real" kung fu for their best students or students who shared a race with them or whatever. The five animals form is a good example but its not even close to being the only one. DFW is in HSK's system. He decides to make a buck in martial arts by making a book and a video. How successful will his video and book be if he advertises it saying, "hey guys, this is a watered down, marked up, crappy version of this form but, hey, buy my book/video anyway?" I don't own the book or the video and haven't even seen them but I am absolutely willing to bet that the book and video market the form as a complete and correct form. DFW had to know, as his sifu had to know as well, that people would purchase that book and would share what they learned therein with others; that's human nature. So, Frank, I hate to say it, but DFW is as responsible as anyone else that there are F'd up versions of your form out there. Even if Jake had known that credit should have been given to DFW (and I still am willing to be that he's just recounting whatever BS story he heard from GMT and EMS) and gave credit to DFW, wouldn't he be doing crappy kung fu and crediting your system, thereby denigrating your system by representing it with the inferior product?

The whole thing is just BS. CMA practitioners routinely lied to their students about the sources/authenticity of their material; not just The. The whole honor and good behaviour in society garbage is a philosophical hook to sell the MA as a broader way of life.

I'm ranting a little, but really, we're mostly adults here. We should stop playing like out lineages are the only lineages that are pure. There are no pure CMA lineages.

[Old Noob]

I know better than to seek legal advice on a forum. I was just curious generally about how cover bands are situated legally.

[bodhi warrior]

For those of you that got the privilege to train directly with SM Bob Green, what was it about his skill in the animal systems that you can share? What was the most impactful lesson you learned from him?

I've always heard he had a unique insight into the expression and would like to know more.

I would love to hear some stories about master green as well. I would love to know about his monkey style.

[Old Noob]

the only thing that is an OBVIOUS FARCE is the Shaolin Do system period. KUNGARATE.



OK the above sounds like someone who wants to keep stealing from REAL kung fu. WHY would anyone be UPSET that they learned a MARKED UP version of a traditional gung fu form? They SHOULD be embarrassed that they were exposed for learning from the book then have the nerve to TEACH it as if they were authrorized to.



what era are you from? who does this TODAY?

now, do you "OLD NOOB" know how we felt when Doc Fai Wong published that book? do you know if we were happy about it? Did we celebrate what he did?



Supposition! you really DON'T know, so don't bet the house on it ok?



SUPPOSITION. THIS IS ONLY WHAT YOU ARE THINKING. DFW'S TEACHER DIED IN 1967. SO HE HAD NOTHING TO SAY NOR FEEL ABOUT IT.



CRAPPY? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT CRAPPY FOR? OH YOU MUST BE TALKING ABOUT JAKE THE SNAKES DEMO OF OUR FORM. YEAH HE REALLY MADE CRAPPY LOOK GOOD. CRAPPY LOOKED BACK AND SAW JAKE THE SNAKE DO THE CRAPPY AND CRAPPY SMILED AND SAID "****, jake sucks!"



YOU DON'T TREAUSURE ANYTHING TRADITIONAL HUH? YOU DON'T CALL THE CHINESE "*****S AND GOOKS" DO YOU?

Slow down chief. Don't try to pin racist accusations on me because I point out that people make books and videos to make money and that you're probably going to make less money if you market your stuff as a pale imitation of an original. Further, when you make a book and a video, your distributing something and should expect that it will be disseminated accordingly. These are logical assumptions, not fallacious meanderings. You're being a bit touchy.

[Old Noob]

This site sells the book:
http://plumblossom.net/Books/

Here's their marketing on the book:

Shaolin Five Animals Kung Fu

•History of Shaolin Five Animals
•Cultural and philosophical background of each animal
•Stages of training the Five Animal form
•Complete Five Animal form performed by Grandmaster Wong
•Applications

(emphasis added)

So, the book is marketed as containing the "complete" form, which is a lie.

The point that I'm trying to make is not a racist one; it's that lying is rampant in CMA (I specify CMA because that's what I'm most familiar with and what little I do know of JMA seems to contain less-disputed lineage/origin claims).

You're criticizing Jake for lying when one of the luminaries of your system lied and distributed an altered form to the unwashed masses for money.

Unclutter your own house is all I'm saying.

[Old Noob]

I missed the part where it said it was the complete "book" version. Totally not a lie now. The situations are completely distinguishable.

I don't have that form and so I can't say where the people in SD got it from. I was really just making the point that CMA history is full of lineage wars, half-truths, and styles diluted by masters an sifus who, for one reason or another, didn't want to show the true kung fu but still wanted to profit from "teaching" it. SD doesn't hold a monopoly on that.

BTW, I thought you Master's version of the form was awesome. The fact that he did it in a polo shirt, slacks, and loafers, though, should suggest that your kung fu is not defined by what you wear when you practice it.

[kwaichang]

All have good poi nts , many CMA Masters did have closed door students they taught the real deal to . That can happen with any teacher. So if that occured with the 5 animal form then what is in the book is probably not what was taught to HSK ???? Is it what you were taught ? If not then those who teach it would do better to take lessons for real and not from a book. But one does what they have to, it is dependent upon intent when learning. Also Many forms have been passed down by "Books" so to learn from a book is not such a bad thing I guess. The Hua Fist and some shaolin forms and legends speak of books being used as study guides. Doctors study out of books then do surgery later right. So after learning it then apply what u know from it in practice, the form may be wrong but the app ; right. So good luck with the debate . KC

[Old Noob]

So this woman who took no students that taught this form to your lineage holder, where did she learn the form? Did she create it? If not, how do you know that the person who taught it to her didn't also teach it to someone else? How do you know that she didn't teach it with "markers" in it so that, when others from her lineage saw the form performed, they would know that it was the version that she gave out? Maybe she was her age's equivalent of DFW?

[Empty_Cup]

...

Shaolin Five Animals Kung Fu

•History of Shaolin Five Animals
•Cultural and philosophical background of each animal
•Stages of training the Five Animal form
•Complete Five Animal form performed by Grandmaster Wong
•Applications

...

So, the book is marketed as containing the "complete" form, which is a lie.

...

You're criticizing Jake for lying when one of the luminaries of your system lied and distributed an altered form to the unwashed masses for money.

Unclutter your own house is all I'm saying.


I missed the part where it said it was the complete "book" version. Totally not a lie now. The situations are completely distinguishable.

...

BTW, I thought you Master's version of the form was awesome. The fact that he did it in a polo shirt, slacks, and loafers, though, should suggest that your kung fu is not defined by what you wear when you practice it.

Old Noob makes some pretty good points here. The fact remains that DFW is using a marked-up version of the form to sell to the public (while not disclosing the fact it's an altered version) which is exactly what Jake's been accused of. This is separate from the issue of referencing/crediting the source.

His last point is alluding to all the criticism SD gets from wearing gi's and belts vs. sammies and sashes.

[Syn7]

The more I read about the traditional CMA culture, the more I think its a farce to tie traditional notions of loyalty, honor, etc. to it. People talk about respecting teachers and stealing material and propogating false markers. . .

But, the markers exist because the teacher, the person profiting from the dissemination of the material, is lying to the purchaser. The boards are full of stories about how their teachers and masters would take on students for profit and teach them watered down techniques; saving their "real" kung fu for their best students or students who shared a race with them or whatever. The five animals form is a good example but its not even close to being the only one. DFW is in HSK's system. He decides to make a buck in martial arts by making a book and a video. How successful will his video and book be if he advertises it saying, "hey guys, this is a watered down, marked up, crappy version of this form but, hey, buy my book/video anyway?" I don't own the book or the video and haven't even seen them but I am absolutely willing to bet that the book and video market the form as a complete and correct form. DFW had to know, as his sifu had to know as well, that people would purchase that book and would share what they learned therein with others; that's human nature. So, Frank, I hate to say it, but DFW is as responsible as anyone else that there are F'd up versions of your form out there. Even if Jake had known that credit should have been given to DFW #and I still am willing to be that he's just recounting whatever BS story he heard from GMT and EMS# and gave credit to DFW, wouldn't he be doing crappy kung fu and crediting your system, thereby denigrating your system by representing it with the inferior product?

The whole thing is just BS. CMA practitioners routinely lied to their students about the sources/authenticity of their material; not just The. The whole honor and good behaviour in society garbage is a philosophical hook to sell the MA as a broader way of life.

I'm ranting a little, but really, we're mostly adults here. We should stop playing like out lineages are the only lineages that are pure. There are no pure CMA lineages.

I think you are missing the point of marking forms. Yes there are some guys that think they have secrets and make crappy forms in order to get paid and keep what they think is deadly to themselves and a select set of students. Avoid these people at all cost. Seriously, even if they do have an authentic lineage, their drama far exceeds the benefits. There are more than enough sifu out there that keep it real and do great work.

Now these honorable teachers aren't trying to scam or water down anything, they simply mark the forms in order to track the evolution and show lineage. Understand that lineage is like a family, two brothers have kids and you have the same family but a whole new branch. The further the branches get away from eachother the more chances of difference. These markers help sort all that out down the line. DFW marked his form because he was giving it out. That way he can tell who learned it from his branch, another branch or the book. That doesn't mean the book form sucked or was any less than the unmarked version. I don't know DFW, he may have been a liar and thief, I don't know. What I do know is that markers are not used by good teachers to deceive. They are there for clarification in the future#due to past arguments no doubt# in distinguishing lineage and their branches. It just has the nice side affect of revealing frauds and liars. They are like MA dna. Basics can remain while style changes. We need to learn basics, but the style is up to us, so it changes. ALOT. Markers help sort that clusterfukc out later. Technically all forms are "marked". Any change or unique attribute you add or change in the form is a marker. Taking note of these changes and passing them on is what markers are all about. You can define it any way you want, but really comes down to taking note of changes and similarities. These changes are very rarely fundamental changes. If they are, they better have a d@mn good reason or they are just liars and thieves. A key movement in a form that is common in all versions is also a marker. It goes both ways. It shows what is different as well as what is the same.

Like I said about my own sifu, his forms change all the time. I have never seen him do a variation and not known exactly what I was looking at. He gave me the foundation of the form and I can even recognize versions from far removed branches that are so different. Yet I can tell you beyond a shadow of doubt that it is the same form. Or was, rather.

[Syn7]

So this woman who took no students that taught this form to your lineage holder, where did she learn the form? Did she create it? If not, how do you know that the person who taught it to her didn't also teach it to someone else? How do you know that she didn't teach it with "markers" in it so that, when others from her lineage saw the form performed, they would know that it was the version that she gave out? Maybe she was her age's equivalent of DFW?

I asked him that like 10 pages ago.

[Syn7]

Old Noob makes some pretty good points here. The fact remains that DFW is using a marked-up version of the form to sell to the public (while not disclosing the fact it's an altered version) which is exactly what Jake's been accused of. This is separate from the issue of referencing/crediting the source.

His last point is alluding to all the criticism SD gets from wearing gi's and belts vs. sammies and sashes.

Why do you assume the changes DFW made were fundamental and/or made the form any better or worse than the original he learned? Huge assumption man. Jake doesn't suck because he learned a crap form, he sucks because he learned a good form from a crap teacher who learned it from a book and never fully understood what was in the book in the first place because he had NO foundation whatsoever. He translated a TCMA form with modern american karate eyes. I can't think of a worse CMA teacher. At least somebody who commits fraud but really knows nothing is building from scratch rather than passing one thing off as another.

[kwaichang]

You know what ever the Form this Jake dude is a joke from what I saw , who thinks he is any good any way no matter what form he does, Hell even his 1st stance in that 5 animal form sux. KC

[Drake]

SIMPLE. if someone wants to learn from a BOOK over learning from a living teacher then SO WHAT. you learn what DFW gave you. simple as that.

if anyone learns from a book, you're gonna end up looking just like jake did. like you don't know what you're doing.

I don't feel sorry for the people who learned from the book. in fact, jake or even SIN THE should be calling DOC FAI WONG "SIFU". so, catch 22, jake stole a form and it bit him in the ass because he ignored and lies about its true source.

T.F.B.

I really don't want to share a Sifu with a bunch of thieves.

[Drake]

Why do you assume the changes DFW made were fundamental and/or made the form any better or worse than the original he learned? Huge assumption man. Jake doesn't suck because he learned a crap form, he sucks because he learned a good form from a crap teacher who learned it from a book and never fully understood what was in the book in the first place because he had NO foundation whatsoever. He translated a TCMA form with modern american karate eyes. I can't think of a worse CMA teacher. At least somebody who commits fraud but really knows nothing is building from scratch rather than passing one thing off as another.

You really can't learn that form from a book. Especially not the one GM DFW published. It's nice for reference, but it doesn't work as a singular teaching tool.

[Syn7]

i would prefer to cut the conversation about its history now and would LOVE LOVE LOVE to pick it back up when another form 75% or more similar to the one i practice from my lineage makes its way to the surface. and please, exclude the one jake the snake is doing. thats our form from the book. :D

Hey, with you tube and cell phone cameras, if it is out there and has the same name, shouldn't take long for it to surface. In your lifetime forsure. Who knows tho. It could still be a very rural form known by a small amount of people that grow their own food and don't give a fukc about youtube and outside opinion on their lineage. Some things never surface, doesn't mean they arent there tho.

[Syn7]

You really can't learn that form from a book. Especially not the one GM DFW published. It's nice for reference, but it doesn't work as a singular teaching tool.

Yeah, I have books with forms. I have never tried to learn a form from a book. They are just curiosities and reference for me.

Is DFW your sifu or sigung? or neither?

[Syn7]

it would be great for martial arts weapons too ...

Imagine sparring with swords if there was no fear of perma damage. It would get pretty ugly up in that motherfukcer, for sure.

I can't imagine decapitation being fixable anytime soon. I have high hopes for re growth of non essential limbs. Genetics, stem cells, 3d printing, cybernetics etc etc aren't that far off. But the head thing is gonna be a major hump, lol. Major organs being the second hardest. If you get stabbed in the heart, even if we can grow you a new heart, that doesn't address what happens to everything else when blood stops flowing or something allows necrosis to set in. Unless the injury occurs in an operating room ready for anything, it's gonna be tough. Think of the brain damage from even a simple minor stroke.

[Shaolin Wookie]

LOL...wtf are you guys talking about? Better yet, what are you smoking?

[yeti]

God d@mn this fukcing forum.

I just signed in, wrote a post, somehow was signed out, can't retrieve the old post, and can't be arsed to re-type the shiit.

It doesn't make me feel better that I can't even type swear words properly. Fukc.

[Syn7]

LOL...wtf are you guys talking about? Better yet, what are you smoking?

I'm from Vancouver. WTF you think I'm smokin'???


I just want to train weapons the way I train hands. Unfortunately I cannot. Nothing even comes close. Best I can do is suit up and swing some wood or a dull ass sword and even then, you can't practice all you would need for the real thing. Not that I intend on getting into a sword fight, but then I don't intend on getting into a fist fight or a gun fight and I'm proficient with those.

We were talking about 3d printers making replacement parts for people. It's already a reality. Not arms and legs, but organs. So far. 20 years ago our best bet was growing them, now we can print a PERFECT kidney in 3 hours. Now that is some sh1t!!!

[One student]

The more I read about the traditional CMA culture, the more I think its a farce to tie traditional notions of loyalty, honor, etc. to it. People talk about respecting teachers and stealing material and propogating false markers. . .

But, the markers exist because the teacher, the person profiting from the dissemination of the material, is lying to the purchaser. The boards are full of stories about how their teachers and masters would take on students for profit and teach them watered down techniques; saving their "real" kung fu for their best students or students who shared a race with them or whatever. The five animals form is a good example but its not even close to being the only one. DFW is in HSK's system. He decides to make a buck in martial arts by making a book and a video. How successful will his video and book be if he advertises it saying, "hey guys, this is a watered down, marked up, crappy version of this form but, hey, buy my book/video anyway?" I don't own the book or the video and haven't even seen them but I am absolutely willing to bet that the book and video market the form as a complete and correct form. DFW had to know, as his sifu had to know as well, that people would purchase that book and would share what they learned therein with others; that's human nature. So, Frank, I hate to say it, but DFW is as responsible as anyone else that there are F'd up versions of your form out there. Even if Jake had known that credit should have been given to DFW (and I still am willing to be that he's just recounting whatever BS story he heard from GMT and EMS) and gave credit to DFW, wouldn't he be doing crappy kung fu and crediting your system, thereby denigrating your system by representing it with the inferior product?

The whole thing is just BS. CMA practitioners routinely lied to their students about the sources/authenticity of their material; not just The. The whole honor and good behaviour in society garbage is a philosophical hook to sell the MA as a broader way of life.

I'm ranting a little, but really, we're mostly adults here. We should stop playing like out lineages are the only lineages that are pure. There are no pure CMA lineages.

You are correct that the honor concept is not maybe as embedded in CMA as it is in Japanese/Okinawan. I know there is a comparable honor component in CMA, but not exactly Bushido. Part of that struck me when I first watched Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story, and the Chinese elders essentially backstabbed Bruce Lee in the "honor fight." [I'm aware that was fiction -- allegedly -- but its the concept I'm pointing out].

But, particularly for those who practice a more eclectic martial arts regimen, particularly who tries to pick the good from all styles, one who favors CMA techniques, forms, styles, doesn't have to shun a code of honor, even Bushido. Heck, shouldn't we have a moral code, a code of honor, a sense of trust and loyalty, whether it is CMA, J/OMA, Korean, whatever? Or for that matter, whether it is martial arts based or not, one doesn't generally want to betray another's trust, and I think one owes some loyalty to one who benefits them. I'm not sure the exchange of money eliminates that debt. But you are correct, it goes both ways, although does being betrayed justify betrayal? Or is it more moral, and more honorable, to take a higher road?

But maybe that's just me. Or what I hope would be me if it came down to it.

[Lucas]

I know this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but my Bushido sense tingled, so I am compelled share a favorite entry. IMO the title 'Samurai' can also be substituted with 'Warrior'

The Way of the Samurai is found in death.
Meditation on inevitable death should be performed daily.
Every day, when one's body and mind are at peace,
one should meditate upon being ripped apart by arrows,
rifles, spears, and swords, being carried away by surging waves,
being thrown into the midst of a great fire, being struck by lightning,
being shaken to death by a great earthquake,
falling from thousand-foot cliffs,
dying of disease or committing seppuku at the death of one's master.
And every day, without fail, one should consider himself as dead.
This is the substance of the Way of the Samurai.

[Syn7]

Bushido is insanity. Sure, there are some great concepts that come from the code, but there's some serious bullsh1t up in there too. Not a concept I would want to follow blindly, that's for sure. I can't even begin to quantify the amount of suffering created by pride and honor. Far more bad than good tho, no doubt about that.

[Old Noob]

The conversation is interesting. I'll admit, that I am by no means an expert in the area of Chinese history or their culture or anthropology. Most of what I understand about it comes from Matt Polley and others who've spent time living over there. Consequently, what I do know is from a limited number of sources and also deals with the CMA community rather than the Chinese community at large. From what I've read,though, and I don't say this critically or judgmentally, there's more emphasis on saving face and appearances and less emphasis on whether what's being posited is ultimately true. Not to say that the society values or condones lying but rather it seems like they're more accepting of hyperbole and exageration (again in the martial arts culture; I don't know anything about the broader culture). I think these fundamental differences are why you hear about back room students verses students who, despite paying some sort of compensation, receive intentionally watered-down training. That's something you just don't seem to see as much in the transmission of JMA. Again, I'm not placing a value judgment on it. I've always elected to take CMAs over JMAs or KMAs. Starting judo this fall will be my first experience with JMA.

[Judge Pen]

Bushido is insanity. Sure, there are some great concepts that come from the code, but there's some serious bullsh1t up in there too. Not a concept I would want to follow blindly, that's for sure. I can't even begin to quantify the amount of suffering created by pride and honor. Far more bad than good tho, no doubt about that.

I agree, which is why I love the post WWII samurai films of Kurosawa and more specifically Masaki Kobayashi are so fascinating because they draw parallels to the injustice done in the name of honor in WWII and in the Tokogawa period in the name of Bushido. Harakiri and Samurai Rebellion is particularly interesting in exploring these concepts as Bushido is pitted against an individual's sense of love and familial relations. Sorry, I just geeked out a little on my love of films.

[Judge Pen]

The conversation is interesting. I'll admit, that I am by no means an expert in the area of Chinese history or their culture or anthropology. Most of what I understand about it comes from Matt Polley and others who've spent time living over there. Consequently, what I do know is from a limited number of sources and also deals with the CMA community rather than the Chinese community at large. From what I've read,though, and I don't say this critically or judgmentally, there's more emphasis on saving face and appearances and less emphasis on whether what's being posited is ultimately true. Not to say that the society values or condones lying but rather it seems like they're more accepting of hyperbole and exageration (again in the martial arts culture; I don't know anything about the broader culture). I think these fundamental differences are why you hear about back room students verses students who, despite paying some sort of compensation, receive intentionally watered-down training. That's something you just don't seem to see as much in the transmission of JMA. Again, I'm not placing a value judgment on it. I've always elected to take CMAs over JMAs or KMAs. Starting judo this fall will be my first experience with JMA.

Well, to bring this back to SD, there's no shortage of hyperbole and exageration in its history.

[Empty_Cup]

Well, to bring this back to SD, there's no shortage of hyperbole and exageration in its history.

True. As is the same with nearly every other multi-gen MA out there. At the inevitable point when students rely on hearsay to pass on traditions there is sure to be exaggeration and hyperbole whether malicious or not.

All the more reason to not put so much faith and stock into lineage and instead focus on how to best adapt your practice to current and future needs.

[Judge Pen]

Lineage is everything in regards to TCMA. the person who doesn't care about lineage, i'd have to question his loyalty to his family, wife, or children. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for everything.

Frank, I respect the fact that you love your teacher like your family. And you love your lineage like your family tree. I love my family with all my heart, soul body and mind, but my teacher is not my family. I respect my teacher for his knowledge and his ability to help me train to defend myself.

Let me ask you this, a house is on fire and you can only save your wife or your sifu (not both): Who do you choose? If you dance around the answer, then it is already apparent.

[Lucas]

Depends on the wife! Badabing!!!!

http://img4.bdbphotos.com/images/120x156/c/7/c7tld69p07aea7.jpg

[Judge Pen]

Frank, you are wrong about me. I have risked my life to save strangers and I would gladly give it to save my friends and family. But I would chose my family first. And dying to save both is what most good people would probably do, but it is dancing around the hypothetical which forces you to chose one and only one.

But as Rodney Dangerfield pointed out, wife might not be the best example. What if it were you infant child? Blood is thicker than lineage (unless its your family style of course).

[Judge Pen]

anyways, in case i haven't stated it clearly, if the house was burning down and inside it were my friends, my wife, child and Sifu, his wife and kids....."I WOULD GLADLY DIE IN ORDER TO SAVE THEM ALL.

SEE THIS HERE....I WOULD GLADLY DIE FOR THEM AS WELL. WHY? ITS CALLED FAMILIA!



Gotcha! And I believe you. Who would you grab first? Your child, wife, sifu, friends? First-come, first-served? You're a big strong guy, but you can't carry them all out at the same time. That's a big family.

[Lucas]

Sounds like you got 99 problems.... :p

[Lucas]

i knew you would have the other half :D

[One student]

Bushido is insanity. Sure, there are some great concepts that come from the code, but there's some serious bullsh1t up in there too. Not a concept I would want to follow blindly, that's for sure. I can't even begin to quantify the amount of suffering created by pride and honor. Far more bad than good tho, no doubt about that.

Substitute any number of other "codes" or "beliefs" or concepts for the word "Bushido" in your comment, and still true: Democracy, Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, and a large number of religions. Can debate the "more bad than good" about many of them. But so true: do not follow it all blindly, but judiciously.

[Empty_Cup]

...

All the more reason to not put so much faith and stock into lineage and instead focus on how to best adapt your practice to current and future needs.


Lineage is everything in regards to TCMA. the person who doesn't care about lineage, i'd have to question his loyalty to his family, wife, or children. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for everything.

I highly disagree that "lineage is everything in regards to TCMA."

Dedication and continual learning will propel students much further than a noble lineage.

[Empty_Cup]

you're entitled to disagree. funny thing is, IT IS within the CHINESE KUNG FU lineages. the ones ran by Chinese, not long lines of Bak Gwai teaching chinese kung fu. Don't know where you learned, but come to chinatown i'll introduce you to a ton of people who disagree with you. and their entitled to that :D

...

You don't speak for all Chinese Kung Fu schools and lineages. Chinese Kung Fu is called "Chinese" because it originated in China, not because being Chinese is a requirement for skilled practice. Being non-Chinese doesn't lessen the quality of the skill in and of itself.

[Old Noob]

You're right about that being where we differ (there are probably others too). I really enjoy kung fu and many of the other students at the qwoon have become by closest friends. My sifu has also become a friend of mine (we are the same age only he has been training continuously whereas me...not so much), but he's not my family. A long time ago, either on this thread or in another, I mentioned that I pay my sifu to instruct me and that, therfore, there will always be a commercial element to my relationship with my Sifu. Because I am a consumer of a product, i.e., the training, its never going to be a "family" situation. Maybe that's why I don't get that bent out of shape about lineage.

[Empty_Cup]

ahhh so you DO come from a long line of WHITE kung fu teachers. figures you'd feel this way.

I could come from a long line of white, brown, yellow, green, and blue teachers...it doesn't lend any support to your argument either way.

The point I made several posts ago was that lineage in and of itself does not make or break a martial artist. Race, IMO, has nothing to do with the debate.

[Empty_Cup]

i have a sneaky feeling you're Shaolin Do and THAT explains everything to me.



No, it doesn't. but if i had a choice to learn from Shaolin Do or some old Chinese gung fu master. my choice is will be obvious. i wouldn't want to be from that lineage EVER. see, lineage does tell me who is fake or who is real. it tells me if you are a fraud or not. see, the frauds don't really know gung fu and care nothing about lineage. thank god I do.

Your logic is a circular argument and assumes the conclusion.

i.e. Lineage is what distinguishes good kung fu vs. frauds. Frauds don't care about lineage and good kung fu students do. Therefore people who care about lineage are good kung fu students and people who don't care are frauds.

[Lucas]

lineage is very important if you are a bearer of that lineage. its not necessarily so if you arent directly involved in the lineage continuation. however lineage can be important in verifying the legitimacy of your style and its roots. i am not concerned with lineage, yet my sifu could trace his back through the temple he was raised and trained in. most sifu will have a lineage they can show you, which amounts to a resume of their wu su career. if someone professes to be a master of a particular academic subject, you'd likely want to know what university they attended to gain this degree.

[Old Noob]

Yeah...well....um. OH WELL. I'm proud to be apart of my historical lineage that teaches authentic chinese gung fu. In my lineage we don't use words like "DO" unless its money or a sword. in fact, zero authentic chinese gung fu styles don't either.

Shaolin and Do. Shaolin (chinese). Do (japanese). two different cultures in the same name while the teacher and everyone in it wears karate gi's (japanese) and wear japanese karate belts but tells them they are learning true chinese gung fu. strange thing about it, none of it looks like gung fu, feels TOTALLY like Karate and uses KARATE terminology when describing chinese techniques.

Long live the Kungarate!!!!!



Choy Lee Fut is very circular too.

Please don't take this as a blanket defense of SD. There are certainly aspects of it that are worthy of criticism and skepticism. However, there are some irrefutable facts that refute some of the points that you're making.

No matter what you believe about SD's origins, it is indesputable that Sin The is Chinese, that he grew up and received martial arts training in Bandung, Indonesia, and that the majority of his teachers (if not all of them) were ethnic chinese.

So you can say what you want about the karatefication of this or that or that SD is karate modified by what Sin The found in CMA books, but those would be really ignorant assertions on your part.

The best criticisms are delivered by those familiar with that which they're criticizing. Your comments regarding the five animals form, for instance, were incisive and useful. Your comments about the origins of SD and the races of its practitioner are really just reflections of ignorance and prejudice.

[Old Noob]

Question, first thanks for the comments about the 5 animal form. however, have you trained in an authentic Chinese Gung Fu school ran by a chinese teacher with a real lineage himself? if yes, who was that? If not, can you tell me how you know the difference of what its like learning in an authentic gung fu school as opposed to learning Shaolin Do?

I'll attempt to answer your question. As I've mentioned, I haven't had a lot of experience, but I did take longfist from Sifu Mike Barry for a little over a year when I was in high school. Mike Barry is not Chinese but my understanding is that he is very well respected in jow ga and longfist circles and that he comes from a recognized lineage. I don't know precisely what tha lineage is because, as I've also said, lineage has never been as important to me as a consumer. I do know that you can goodle Sifu Barry and readily identify his lineage.

I'll also admit that my experience with Sifu Barry is different than my experience in SD; uniforms are different, forms are different, movement is different. However, based on my admittedly low experience, I don't see the differences as any greater as say the difference between longfist and wing chung.

[tattooedmonk]

Since jake the snake LOVES the HUA style so much he should have learned THEIR five animals form Hua To ("five animals play" - tiger, deer, monkey, bear and bird) was developed. not the same. haha!! the Hua animals are; ape tiger, dragon, leopard, and eagle.

Funny thing is he is talking about the other WAH style, meaning flower, The Fist of Hua Mountain or Glorious( China) Fist is actually what he is refering to in his videos.

Hua To's Five animal frolics are Qi Gong exercises.

[tattooedmonk]

you come from a long, reputable, verifiable, chinese lineage and yet you still are a douche bag, then what?? Jake is really full of himself. He is his own counsel and advisor. totally un approachable and difficult to reason or talk with.

[kwaichang]

I am really enjoying all this let me intrude for a moment, SD is a good MA is it a traceable lineage style maybe who knows but GMT, do they make money at it sure . Is that bad ? Maybe it could be. I have done Traditional Tang Lang from a teacher as well as Hung Jia , also I have practiced Japanese Karate as it was taught by Gichin Funakoshi I trained with one of his last remaining Direct students. So I Know Karate. Nothing in SD is based upon Karate Principles. Does it look like it may be , some . Biut I know the difference, SD is not Pure or even close to Karate. But no one who learns the principles of Kung Fu will look just like their teacher. They may be able to convey the knowledge but to assume a style isnt real because of a person doing it poorly is loike saying all UT grads are hillbillies just because it is in east Tennessee. KC:)

[Leto]

I know about bandung. My ex girls family lives there now. the reason for them being mostly chinese there is that this BANDUNG is city or whatever for the Chinese in Indonesia.

I know know were or what Sin The learned. what i've seen from this Shaolin Do system from a GUNG FU perspective is karate trying to do kung fu with karate flavor.
Jake the snake doesn't have any teachers but somehow teaches bits and pieces of forms he finds online and in books.

No lineage. No history. NO gung fu.



there's only one side of ignorance here. and for sure i'm excluded. I know the difference. Others know the difference. for example, did i create this thread? :confused:

Did i ever comment in this thread prior to me finding jake the fake snake teaching a form that was learned from the book written by Doc Fai Wong? that would be a know. In fact, the moment i saw SHAOLIN "DO" on the name of this thread, i purposely avoided it cause it hand the rank smell of FRAUD in it.

why doesn't shaolin do have a real lineage to speak of?



Question, first thanks for the comments about the 5 animal form. however, have you trained in an authentic Chinese Gung Fu school ran by a chinese teacher with a real lineage himself? if yes, who was that? If not, can you tell me how you know the difference of what its like learning in an authentic gung fu school as opposed to learning Shaolin Do?

You know that Jake is legally prohibited from claiming to be associated with Sin The and Shaolin-DO/CSC, right? He did have teachers and a lineage, but he had a legal falling out with both his immediate teachers the Soards, and then later with Sin The, so that he can't say who his teachers were in public or claim to be a part of their lineage. I don't think he learned anything directly from a book. He may be teaching things he doesn't know how to perform properly, but he's teaching them the way his teachers taught him. He should know better by now, and should make an effort to learn real history, but the fact remains that he didn't personally "steal" anything. He's teaching what he was taught. I know because I learned all the stuff he learned pretty much the same way he learned it, I was in CSC in Colorado at the same time that he was still a student there, before he was sent to teach in Phoenix. This isn't an excuse or support for how Sin The and Shaolin Do does things, but I think you're being a little too hard on Jake, who's teaching what he knows and loves, as misinformed and misguided as he might be. What if you found out that your lineage was a bunch of BS, and that your teacher's teacher was lying about a lot of stuff from the beginning, after devoting years learning and teaching what you believe is excellent martial arts? What would you do? I wouldn't and am not doing what Jake is doing, but then I wasn't making my livelihood from teaching with an established group of devoted students either.

SD does have a "real" lineage, which goes from Sin The to Ie Chang Ming and other Chinese immigrants in Bandung, Java. What their lineages were isn't known. It is my impression that in Indonesia, there was less emphasis on lineage and more on making it work, and Sin The passed that on to his students in Kentucky, which was also convenient since he didn't have all that much material to pass on (which is why I believe he started teaching things from books and videos after a while, to keep his students devoted and interested in his school).

Another question...how many different martial arts have you practiced, other than Hung Sing CLF? You know not all Chinese styles move and look like CLF, right? There are many kinds of "gung fu", and different Chinese styles do not all agree on what is correct, some are very different from one another. SD's foundational material and forms, the unique ones not borrowed/stolen from books and other styles, are Chinese martial arts. There isn't any karate in there. It's sort of insulting to karate, which I have practiced for over 20 years, to call any bad-looking Chinese martial art "karate". There is a core of Chinese martial arts, in the Indonesian tradition called "kun tao", which is what Shaolin Do really is. Sin The may be ridiculous and a liar, and it may have been taught poorly, but that is what it is. A mixed up blend of different Chinese martial arts from Indonesia, taught without regard to history or lineage, commericialized for the USA and adapted to the expectations of southeastern Americans regarding Asian martial arts in the 1960's. There should be an effort to re-learn or correct what has been learned in many cases, to teach the correct history and origin for many of the things that are taught, to remove material which was never properly learned by Sin The and his students, or at least to correct it by getting training from the source of that material.

For the five animal form in particular, which is the issue that brought you in, I agree that it is being done incorrectly and that the true history and lineage of the form need to be taught. It either needs to be corrected with instruction from Hung Sing or not taught. In CSC we were not taught that, we were told that it is an old shaolin form from the temple and represented an entire five animal system, we thought that the CLF form was just another version of the form, and we had a more direct transmission from the shaolin temple. Which is apparently what Jake still chooses to believe. Or at least, he is choosing to continue the lie to make his material seem more legitimate. I decided to get Doc Fai Wong's book and video and correct the form for my own practice, a few years ago when I learned the true source of that form. It may be marked, but it is much better than how I was originally taught.

[tattooedmonk]

hahha thats what i got off a website. i don't even know them hahaha.



yes he is. ok just don't step on my toe.

all this shaolin do **** is giving me a headache just trying to help. :D

[tattooedmonk]

oops. almost took your message wrong. haha. didn't see the what if.

jake is the prime example of self love. he has an eery glaze when he stares into camera. probably telling himself how good he is. LOL.

i find his PERFECT this or that video's completely hilarious. he's a fekkin pregnant ostrich. A pelicano. or my favorite "TORTA FACCIA".HAHA Funny:D:eek::)

[Lucas]

he didn't have all that much material to pass on (which is why I believe he started teaching things from books and videos after a while, to keep his students devoted and interested in his school).



this could also very well be the source of the conflict. just because you know martial arts doesnt mean you'll be able to capture the essence of a style very well out of a book, or even from a video without hands on instruction and correction.

[Leto]

i've practiced karate, Judo, Tai Mantis, and tae Kwon Do all by the age of 14. From 14 till the present. Just Choy Lee Fut. However, I live in whats known to be the gung fu mecca. almost every style of gung fu can be found here. So, after 30 years of experience in CLF, and the fact that i was born into a karate family, i know the difference between gung fu and karate. karate flavor is very distinct. to people who are around gung fu they can point it out as well.



This is what got me into the history of my lineage. first, even as a kid i knew my sifu could fight. but i'd ask his friends or others that knew him during that time. thank god my sifu has a legit history. but if i found out he was fake, i'd expose him because people don't need to be lied to.



then i can take half the blame away from him. i'm sorry HE got lied to. However, jake perpetuated that lie by lying to me that he knows many teachers in China who practice this exact form. he should have just said i learned it from my teacher.



has anyone done any real research to trace this lineage? and can you please answer the questions for me about what shaolin temple your history was talking about? the dates are way off and the shaolin temple was destroyed by Qing Soldiers, not by shaolin Monks themselves. so right there, is a red flag for me.



from what style? Shaolin? is that northern or southern? and again, from 1849 to 1928 what shaolin temple was destroyed that there isn't any info on it anywhere? :confused: its not directed at you, don't take it that way. its just my questions.



ok, can you tell me why your lineage uses karate terms instead of the Shaolin terms like most of the shaolin schools do? for example, jakes "SMASH" kick is a crescent kick. why not use its correct terminology instead of using something karate people use? oh i'm not the only one that feels jakes kungarate looks more karate than he does gung fu.



this causes my stomach to turn. people don't deserve to be lied to this way. i feel so bad for you guys. i do. i'd hate to be in your positions.




if this was done in the first place no one would ever hear from me. i would just put my head down and keep walking by. i'd never learn from a book, but if i did i'd give it its respect for being the source. so much is lost without proper teaching.

I hope you can understand why jakes demo of our form sickened me. i actually felt violated. had to go and check. whew! if his demo of my lineages form is an example of what your master taught you, then i won't blame him for how he looks while doing it. its sucks cause there is way more to this form that you guys are missing that couldn't be put in a book.



at least you can see how the form is different by watching DFW and looking at jake. jake doesn't do it right. however, there was some things changed in it. but i can tell what and where its been changed. now, there is one element missing in that form and video and i will say its the internal part. that form isn't a hard n fast 5 animal form like we see today. its internal. and thats whats missing. but you still have know how we do it to understand it completely.

if you're willing to come down maybe meet my sifu, offer him up a red envelope i might be able to get him to correct you. if you'd like. but thats if he's up to it. and there's a chance he might not be.

Well, I'd love to travel around the country and the world seeking out martial arts teachers, and I'd love to learn from Hung Sing, too. If I were single I would actually consider taking trips like that, since I would be spending all my money and time on martial arts rather than on homemaking with the wife ;). For now, it's just practicing what I already know and supplement with personal research, there's actually a lot to work on. Thank you for the offer, though.

The shaolin do history story is mostly a fable, it isn't real. We were taught that it came from the southern shaolin temple, but they got it confused with the destruction of the northern temple in 1928. Several other things they teach as history are also incorrect for one reason or another, or just plain legend. The fact is, no one really knows where it came from before Indonesia, and researching anything more is pretty much impossible without Sin The's cooperation. Based on studying different types of Chinese martial arts, northern and southern, and having practiced karate for most of my life, and researching into the martial arts of Java and Indonesia, I have come to the conclusion for myself that there is actual Chinese martial arts there. I believe it is a mixture of northern and southern styles maybe even blended with some Indonesian methods. The basic line exercises taught, that we called short forms or lohan, are northern style longfist, what exactly I couldn't say. Some of the unique forms are a blend of fujian styles like white crane and northern styles. I believe Sin The's family is from Fujian, they speak the Min dialect of that province I think, that is the language most of the material is presented in. The information about the types of Chinese martial arts found in western Java from Donn Draeger's book corroborates that observation, as he mentions fukien styles and shandong styles as well as the internal styles all coexisting in this area of Indonesia. While SD may have been poor instruction in some cases, there was something Chinese from Indonesia that was being taught, alongside some things which Sin The probably learned from books or videos and then taught as his own.
I don't know why they used Japanese terms for ranks and exercises when he started in Kentucky, since there is nothing of karate in there, at least from my experience with Okinawan karate (which I have been practicing for over 20 years). The school I joined in Colorado didn't use Japanese words for anything, it was all Chinese, though they still had the uniforms.
Karate doesn't use the term "smash kick" either, it is also a crescent kick, hangestsu geri. That is something Sin The made up, I think.
I know you're not the only one who thinks SD looks more karate than kung fu, but the people who say that mostly don't seem to know karate very well. I would have known immediately if what I was learning was just karate with a different name. There are no karate techniques there. It may be more stiff, more rigid than Chinese martial arts are usually performed. Not enough connection between lower body and upper body, no good flow. That is indication to me that Sin The may not have had the level of skill that he claims to, or he wasn't a very good teacher that his students never got past a very beginner stage of performance. Of course, they did a lot of conditioning and heavy sparring, not so much focus on forms, and were tough fighters in their own manner, so how skilled and successfull he was as a teacher is up for debate on that front. But based on talking with some of the guys who were students back in the 60's, it seems that tradition and lineage were not their focus, it was fighting, and as the years went on and he wanted to reach a bigger audience than just a few guys who liked to brawl, he had to start looking for other things to teach (more forms), and started telling this whole history to play on people's fantasy about the shaolin temple and Chinese martial arts. Then the stiff beginner level of basics just got applied to every form that he learned and taught, and that is why everything looks the way it does. Not because it is karate, but because there were never the correct fundamentals to perform those forms correctly.

I know CMA people tend to have a poor view of karate, and vice versa. I find that this opinion usually is not based on actual experience, but generalizations and stereotypes. Bad kung fu does not equal karate, it is just bad kung fu. Maybe bad karate and bad kung fu are more similar, because they are both usually missing a method of moving the body in a connected way.

I can understand feeling disturbed at seeing someone perform a form you are familiar with in a strange or incorrect way. I have never had the familial sense of ownership of my martial arts as you do, the styles I have learned are all so widespread that the specific kata can't be said to belong to just one lineage or family. The Okinawan kata are spread all over several karate styles, so if I see one of my kata being mangled, all I can really do is shake my head, since it doesn't belong only to my school, and I'm not Okinawan.

[Syn7]

Substitute any number of other "codes" or "beliefs" or concepts for the word "Bushido" in your comment, and still true: Democracy, Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, and a large number of religions. Can debate the "more bad than good" about many of them. But so true: do not follow it all blindly, but judiciously.

Yeah but they aren't all equal in their damage. All cultures are a mix of good and bad, some worse than others. The Bushido code is one of the most ignorant approaches to righteousness I have ever seen. I can name a few more just as bad and a ton more that vary as to how bad they are, but Bushido was talked about in this thread.

I guess it depends on how you define honor, but for the most part it's all prideful garbage.

[Syn7]

I don't see the differences as any greater as say the difference between longfist and wing chung.

Noticing the differences comes from experience, which you freely admit you don't understand. You won't understand until after you have the experience. Then it will be obvious. Think of all your parents tell you when you're a kid then when you grow up you see they actually did know what they were talking about. It's all about experience.

HSK, anyone well acquainted with CMA's would have had the same thoughts based on the title alone. We all did, you aren't alone there. Shaolin-Do screams of fraud. Again, it takes experience to see that.

[Empty_Cup]

Well, I'd love to travel around the country and the world seeking out martial arts teachers, and I'd love to learn from Hung Sing, too. If I were single I would actually consider taking trips like that, since I would be spending all my money and time on martial arts rather than on homemaking with the wife ;). For now, it's just practicing what I already know and supplement with personal research, there's actually a lot to work on. Thank you for the offer, though.

The shaolin do history story is mostly a fable, it isn't real. We were taught that it came from the southern shaolin temple, but they got it confused with the destruction of the northern temple in 1928. Several other things they teach as history are also incorrect for one reason or another, or just plain legend. The fact is, no one really knows where it came from before Indonesia, and researching anything more is pretty much impossible without Sin The's cooperation. Based on studying different types of Chinese martial arts, northern and southern, and having practiced karate for most of my life, and researching into the martial arts of Java and Indonesia, I have come to the conclusion for myself that there is actual Chinese martial arts there. I believe it is a mixture of northern and southern styles maybe even blended with some Indonesian methods. The basic line exercises taught, that we called short forms or lohan, are northern style longfist, what exactly I couldn't say. Some of the unique forms are a blend of fujian styles like white crane and northern styles. I believe Sin The's family is from Fujian, they speak the Min dialect of that province I think, that is the language most of the material is presented in. The information about the types of Chinese martial arts found in western Java from Donn Draeger's book corroborates that observation, as he mentions fukien styles and shandong styles as well as the internal styles all coexisting in this area of Indonesia. While SD may have been poor instruction in some cases, there was something Chinese from Indonesia that was being taught, alongside some things which Sin The probably learned from books or videos and then taught as his own.
I don't know why they used Japanese terms for ranks and exercises when he started in Kentucky, since there is nothing of karate in there, at least from my experience with Okinawan karate (which I have been practicing for over 20 years). The school I joined in Colorado didn't use Japanese words for anything, it was all Chinese, though they still had the uniforms.
Karate doesn't use the term "smash kick" either, it is also a crescent kick, hangestsu geri. That is something Sin The made up, I think.
I know you're not the only one who thinks SD looks more karate than kung fu, but the people who say that mostly don't seem to know karate very well. I would have known immediately if what I was learning was just karate with a different name. There are no karate techniques there. It may be more stiff, more rigid than Chinese martial arts are usually performed. Not enough connection between lower body and upper body, no good flow. That is indication to me that Sin The may not have had the level of skill that he claims to, or he wasn't a very good teacher that his students never got past a very beginner stage of performance. Of course, they did a lot of conditioning and heavy sparring, not so much focus on forms, and were tough fighters in their own manner, so how skilled and successfull he was as a teacher is up for debate on that front. But based on talking with some of the guys who were students back in the 60's, it seems that tradition and lineage were not their focus, it was fighting, and as the years went on and he wanted to reach a bigger audience than just a few guys who liked to brawl, he had to start looking for other things to teach (more forms), and started telling this whole history to play on people's fantasy about the shaolin temple and Chinese martial arts. Then the stiff beginner level of basics just got applied to every form that he learned and taught, and that is why everything looks the way it does. Not because it is karate, but because there were never the correct fundamentals to perform those forms correctly.

I know CMA people tend to have a poor view of karate, and vice versa. I find that this opinion usually is not based on actual experience, but generalizations and stereotypes. Bad kung fu does not equal karate, it is just bad kung fu. Maybe bad karate and bad kung fu are more similar, because they are both usually missing a method of moving the body in a connected way.

I can understand feeling disturbed at seeing someone perform a form you are familiar with in a strange or incorrect way. I have never had the familial sense of ownership of my martial arts as you do, the styles I have learned are all so widespread that the specific kata can't be said to belong to just one lineage or family. The Okinawan kata are spread all over several karate styles, so if I see one of my kata being mangled, all I can really do is shake my head, since it doesn't belong only to my school, and I'm not Okinawan.

Interesting post...you mentioned the book by Donn do you have any more references of the Chinese society living in Bandung at that time?

[Judge Pen]

i don't feel that way. i think all styles are good. they are the tools a fighter will use. if the fighter is no good, the style is no good.

So if a style without a verifiable linage creates a good fighter, than the style is good?

If a family member lied to you would you expose them as frauds?

[Judge Pen]

I didn't say it was, but way to answer my questions. Lineage and family are paramount, but you would out your teacher if he lied and you said that you think all styles are good because they are the tools a fighter will use, and if the fighter is not good, then the style is not good. So good fighters come from a good style regardless of lineage or origins.

[Lucas]

i think the gongfu vs karate is mostly a clutural attachment. chinese and japanese have a long history of strife. my gongfu teacher also has a black belt in karate and judo. once he said i fight like a karate man. since im not japanese or chinese i didnt take it as an insult. rather as just an observation. i do tend to put a lot of focus and intention on the power of my strikes and am also somewhat of a 'sacrificial' fighter, in that i'll leave openings and eat shots on purpose to get the target i want.

[Lucas]

i may not be invested in shaolin-do but i want to see a thread with 1k pages. i'll post stuff here just to help out!

[Lucas]

game on!!!!

[Old Noob]

So if a style without a verifiable linage creates a good fighter, than the style is good?

If a family member lied to you would you expose them as frauds?

I was going to make this point. Then the dialogue that happened between you and HSK played itself out in my head and I elected not to say it. The dabate has circles all the way around it seems.

[tattooedmonk]

why does the clothing matter, lineage or terminology matter so much to you, especially if you cant really use it in a fight or self defense any way?

[Empty_Cup]

So my question is, if shaolin do was indeed authentic kung fu, and for this conversations sake, lets say it is......

Is there a specific reason why you guys wear karate gi's and belts instead of a typical kung fu uniform. WERE YOU JUST TRYING TO BE DIFFERENT?

I know my first question would be "why the karate gi's, karate bows, and all the stuff that says karate" when i first walk into a school of "shaolin" kung fu.

What that says to me is, you guys didn't know any better. But, with the internet these days, you'd swear someone might speak up and say....

"if we're kung fu why are we wearing a karate outfit?"
i know i would.

THESE GUYS ARE SHAOLIN.....I DON'T SEE ANY GI'S OR KARATE BELTS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm_7uOMuIeE

This question has been asked and answered numerous times on this thread and I doubt anybody will want to dig up the old posts for you. All of the discussion is in the thread.

[tattooedmonk]

this is how I understand it...http://www.chingyikungfu.com/index.php?m=49 besides the story as told by GMT about chinese martial arts being outlawed in Indonesia.

[Lucas]

wsa it martial arts in general that were outlawed in indonesia or just chinese specifically?

[Old Noob]

So my question is, if shaolin do was indeed authentic kung fu, and for this conversations sake, lets say it is......

Is there a specific reason why you guys wear karate gi's and belts instead of a typical kung fu uniform. WERE YOU JUST TRYING TO BE DIFFERENT?

I know my first question would be "why the karate gi's, karate bows, and all the stuff that says karate" when i first walk into a school of "shaolin" kung fu.

What that says to me is, you guys didn't know any better. But, with the internet these days, you'd swear someone might speak up and say....

"if we're kung fu why are we wearing a karate outfit?"
i know i would.

THESE GUYS ARE SHAOLIN.....I DON'T SEE ANY GI'S OR KARATE BELTS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm_7uOMuIeE

This isn't a reasonable question coming from you; you and I discussed five pages back that what you wear doesn't define your art. If it did, one could assume that your master was practising classical Italian maffia martial arts when he performed kung fu in a black button down, black slacks, and dress loafers. When I commented on how I wouldn't judge his kung fu based on what he was wearing, you responded that: 1) I was correct; and 2) he wore steet clothes when he practiced kung fu because he practiced kung fu for use in the streets.

So, why does SD wear gis? The official answer is all over the thread and you can look back and find it. Since I don't personnally believe the official reason, I won't propogate that myth here. I think they use gis for two reasons. First, I think they used what was readily available as martial arts wear when Sin The first started teaching in Kentucky in the late 60s. Second, I just think they're more practical and durable for some of the training we do.

Some shaolin schools wear the monks robes. Some wear the sams with the frog buttons. Some wear sweat pants and school t-shirts. I don't think what they wear is a really good indicator of authenticity or origin.

Every martial art that has adopted the colored belt system is riding off judo. That doesn't make all martial arts that use colored belts judo.

[tattooedmonk]

ok, but its not outlawed in america. So why not do the traditional thing? Why keep something forced upon you? Even the chinese cut off their cue's when the qing was overthrown.kentucky in the 60's? haha funny. maybe on the coasts but in the south? yikes

[tattooedmonk]

wsa it martial arts in general that were outlawed in indonesia or just chinese specifically?just chinese....

[tattooedmonk]

old noob posted this... First, I think they used what was readily available as martial arts wear when Sin The first started teaching in Kentucky in the late 60s. Second, I just think they're more practical and durable for some of the training we do. this is about right in my eyes.

[Old Noob]

you and me are clear. This isn't for you. I'm fukkin with the two guys who don't seem to get it.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO JUST GIVE ME THE CONDENSED VERSION TO WHY THE GI'S? I MEAN THE SHINY OUTFITS AREN'T WHAT I CONSIDER TRADITIONAL.

TRADITIONAL GUNG FU OUTFIT IS A TSHIRT WITH THE SCHOOLS NAME ON IT. A SASH, NOT KARATE BELT. AND KUNG FU PANTS, THE ONES WITH THE ELASTIC AT THE BOTTOMS.

SO, AGAIN WHY?

I'm generally okay at understanding the written word. What exactly is it that I'm not getting? You've laid out a number of opinions. Some of them are supported by logic and evidence. Those have been acknowledged. Others are supported by prejudice and ingnorance. Yet others are seemingly mutually exclusive to other opinions you articulate. It's the latter two sets that brother Penn and I have been asking you about. And, in response to those questions, you rarely answer the question that was asked and usually engage in some derisive opinionated hyperbole.

Neither JP nor I have said that SD is authentic shaolin kung fu. We've both suggested that it is not karate; an assertion that is supported by others. We've also both stated that it's Chinese in origin and influenced by Indonesian martial arts; an assertion that is also supported by others and somewhat demonstrable. Nonetheless, you keep calling it karate and saying that people aren't getting you. That, I don't get.

[Old Noob]

WELL, I'LL ASK THIS, THEN I'LL TRY. iF I SHOWED UP TO PLAY A BASKETBALL GAME IN A BASEBALL OUTFIT WOULD ANYONE POINT, LAUGH AND STARE?

I WOULD SAY YES. REGARDLESS IF THAT GUY IN THE BASEBALL OUTFIT COULD PLAY, PEOPLE WILL STILL ASK WHY THE BASEBALL OUTFIT? OR WHAT IF THE WHOLE BASKETBALL TEAM WORE LAB COATS. WHAT IF I SHOWED UP TO MY WEDDING WHILE EVERYONE ELSE HAS SUITS AND TUX'S ON, BUT I SHOWED UP IN A CLOWN OUTFIT. YOU WOULDN'T ASK WHY? :D I WOULD

IN THE END, IT TELLS ME ABOUT YOUR TRAINING. WHETHER IT WAS AUTHENTIC, MADE UP, BORROWED, OR WHATEVER, IT WOULD INDICATE TO ME WHETHER YOU WERE PROPERLY TRAINED OR NOT.

MAYBE IT ALL FALL DOWN TO BEING HONORABLE. WHO KNOWS. ITS STILL NOT WHAT IT SAYS IT IS IN MY OPINION. BUT WHO AM I RIGHT?

So your master is an expert in the Sopranos martial art system? Because he looks just like Polly Wallnuts.

[tattooedmonk]

WELL, I'LL ASK THIS, THEN I'LL TRY. iF I SHOWED UP TO PLAY A BASKETBALL GAME IN A BASEBALL OUTFIT WOULD ANYONE POINT, LAUGH AND STARE?

I WOULD SAY YES. REGARDLESS IF THAT GUY IN THE BASEBALL OUTFIT COULD PLAY, PEOPLE WILL STILL ASK WHY THE BASEBALL OUTFIT? OR WHAT IF THE WHOLE BASKETBALL TEAM WORE LAB COATS. WHAT IF I SHOWED UP TO MY WEDDING WHILE EVERYONE ELSE HAS SUITS AND TUX'S ON, BUT I SHOWED UP IN A CLOWN OUTFIT. YOU WOULDN'T ASK WHY? :D I WOULD

IN THE END, IT TELLS ME ABOUT YOUR TRAINING. WHETHER IT WAS AUTHENTIC, MADE UP, BORROWED, OR WHATEVER, IT WOULD INDICATE TO ME WHETHER YOU WERE PROPERLY TRAINED OR NOT.

MAYBE IT ALL FALL DOWN TO BEING HONORABLE. WHO KNOWS. ITS STILL NOT WHAT IT SAYS IT IS IN MY OPINION. BUT WHO AM I RIGHT?funny...I would think the guy was trying to throw off your game , as long as he could play I wouldnt care. laughing at me, ha I have been laughed at all my life. BFD

Clown outfit at a wedding , hilarious!! I would tell her that shes late for the strip show, it was last night!! your comparisons are ridiculous and not even applicable or compareable.

funny just the same.

funny story about Nikki Sixx from motley crue who stole his first guitar while asking for an application at a music store...goes to the band rehearsal he stole the guitar for and opens up the case to find out he stole a 6 string guitar instead of a 4 string bass guitar.... never stopped him from being a good musician, multiplatnum selling artists and rich as FUKC!

[tattooedmonk]

lets see you wear a clown outfit to a wedding! Take pics. I need to laugh. But you know its dude. Its funny too. But i know you get the point.

You know why you won't see the sh1t i mentioned, cause i won't happen. People know better.

And i stand full 100% confident in my comment that all i see is karate from shaolin do. I don't see traditional chinese gung fu. I see japanese flavor. I don't see chinese flavor.

Why do i feel this way? You mean after 30 years of being in the middle of authentic traditional chinese gung fu you don't think i'd know the difference? Are you serious? Nah you can't be serious. Come on man, stop playing with me.



BUT HE NEVER GOT WHAT HE REALLY WANTED. GOT WHAT HE GOT AND WINGED IT.

GUNG FU DOESN'T LOOK LIKE KARATE AND VICE VERSA.

I'VE NEVER SEEN A TRUE CHINESE KUNG FU SCHOOL WITH TRACEABLE ROOTS LOOK LIKE KARATE IN MY ENTIRE LIFE. I believe you think you know what kung fu should look like from your perspective and from your roots and lineage . SD took a different path. If yours took a different path maybe you would be wearing karate gis and colored belts!! haha I believe it has karate , gung fu and kun tao/ silat flavor. the notes are the same, so is the job. it didnt matter that he had a guitar instead of a bass.

[Lucas]

so does the name shaolin-do mean 'the way of the forest of mount shaoshi? or is the word shaolin not supposed to be a direct translation for the style? i'm kind of curious now, if its supposed to be meaning like the way of the shaolin in terms of shaolin martial arts, how much beyond forms are you following in the way of shaolin traditions? and how many of the forms are just like the shaolin material?

[Syn7]

The fact is, no one really knows where it came from before Indonesia, and researching anything more is pretty much impossible without Sin The's cooperation.

And that isn't a massive red flag to you? Why does he not cooperate? How do you know Sin The didn't make it up, or learn a few half assed forms from other friends who were themselves novice students then he took this, called it his Indonesian Chinese gong fu and supplemented the few forms he had with stuff from books? Sin The has never studied any Japanese MA's? If the answer is no, where did all the Japanese terminology come from? Everything about the present suggests the past is highly suspect, if not outright fraudulent.

Are there any competing shaolin do cats who only know shaolin do and never trained anything else? Anyone successful, that is???

[Syn7]

So if a style without a verifiable linage creates a good fighter, than the style is good?

If a family member lied to you would you expose them as frauds?

If a family member lied to me on the level that SD lies to it's "clients", I would be the first to expose them.

Can you prove that SD has created any good fighters?

Remember, you can't use somebody who practices multiple disciplines as an example. Has anyone who ONLY learned SD ever done anything provable? Anything? Show me a fight record, A video, A well respected FIGHTER giving props to SD? ANYTHING?

[Empty_Cup]

...

Can you prove that SD has created any good fighters?

Remember, you can't use somebody who practices multiple disciplines as an example. Has anyone who ONLY learned SD ever done anything provable? Anything? Show me a fight record, A video, A well respected FIGHTER giving props to SD? ANYTHING?

As far as I'm aware there are no professional fighters who have only trained SD.

What other kind of "provable" fighting evidence are you looking for? Is it sufficient to have cases where somebody defended themselves in the street successfully, or does that not qualify?

[Lucas]

ive defended myself successfully but i dont consider myself a successful fighter, because i dont fight other fighters in a public venue. i do consider those incidents as successful self defense situations that proved my training has been a benefit though. so yes that is a good thing that people can use their art to defend themselves. did sin the ever fight? like muay thai or sanda or american kickboxing?

[kwaichang]

How many on here who gives accolades to their current system of practice has never ever seen another MA and taken something and used it to better their fighting skills? I would say None. I will say this SD made me a better fighter and yes I was already pretty good , so I have been told . So I dont know if that answers your question but thats the way it is. Just because you fight in a ring dont make you a good fighter , real fighting isnt in a ring. KC

[Empty_Cup]

How many on here who gives accolades to their current system of practice has never ever seen another MA and taken something and used it to better their fighting skills? I would say None. I will say this SD made me a better fighter and yes I was already pretty good , so I have been told . So I dont know if that answers your question but thats the way it is. Just because you fight in a ring dont make you a good fighter , real fighting isnt in a ring. KC

Well said KC.

This has been another criticism of SD that has come up again and again in this thread and never seems to go anywhere. If SD shows a good fighter, the opponents say, "Well you can have good fighters come out of a sh!tty system because they just know how to fight!" If some weak SD sparring or fighter is shown the the opponents say, "HA! See! SD is a sh!tty system!"

IMO SD practitioners would do better to enter more open sparring tournaments but I don't believe that the # of professional fighters with a SD background is that relevant. It seems to be more of a numbers game than anything. That being said, I wouldn't recommend somebody in SD to go enter a bunch of open tournaments without first showing some success in the Lexington tournaments. Build your own foundation first, then test it against other styles.

[shaolin_allan]

is this what you call good fighters?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29HzSE9Ov08


That sparring made me sad and vomit in my mouth. Those brown belts fought like white belts

[Empty_Cup]

That sparring made me sad and vomit in my mouth. Those brown belts fought like white belts

I remember exactly when that clip went up. The girl in the vid filmed herself and posted on Youtube. It (understandably) got all sorts of negative criticism both inside and outside of SD. Not sure why she felt the need to post it, but obviously this is not the gold standard for sparring.

[One student]

Yeah but they aren't all equal in their damage. All cultures are a mix of good and bad, some worse than others. The Bushido code is one of the most ignorant approaches to righteousness I have ever seen. I can name a few more just as bad and a ton more that vary as to how bad they are, but Bushido was talked about in this thread.

I guess it depends on how you define honor, but for the most part it's all prideful garbage.

I guess, in the sense ancient Chivalry also had its good and bad, with Bushido I guess I'd have to reject the parts about if I dishonor my master or sensei or whatever I have to die or something.

But you can't argue against the parts about honesty, loyalty to freinds and family (even if the includes a school, kwoon, dojo, etc.), striving to live a virtuous and clean life, defending the weak, hard work towards a worthy goal, things like that. And you don't have to call it Bushido to still strive to walk that path.

[One student]

Noticing the differences comes from experience, which you freely admit you don't understand. You won't understand until after you have the experience. Then it will be obvious. Think of all your parents tell you when you're a kid then when you grow up you see they actually did know what they were talking about. It's all about experience.

HSK, anyone well acquainted with CMA's would have had the same thoughts based on the title alone. We all did, you aren't alone there. Shaolin-Do screams of fraud. Again, it takes experience to see that.

I was taught and trained in Tien Shien Pai class for about a year, and took extra lessons with the school's Grandmaster on weekends, including in Hsing Ie, a Monkey form, a Chi Kung (Qui Gong) class, and a couple weapons (short stick and Dao broadsword). From the beginner class on, the curriculum and method of training and teaching was not that different from SD classes-- and the Hsing Ie was nearly identical.

[One student]

this is how I understand it...http://www.chingyikungfu.com/index.php?m=49 besides the story as told by GMT about chinese martial arts being outlawed in Indonesia.

From that page, this about says it all:

"As for wearing an actual belt, this is again pretty much a matter of individual preference. Most practitioners of the Ching Yi System wear either what has come to be popularly known in martial arts circles as a "Kung Fu jacket" of the Ch'ing Dynasty (1644-1911) design, or just a CYKFA T-shirt, and loose-fitting pants. In that case, the thick cotton belts used by other martial arts styles seem to be rather cumbersome and restrictive to the physical movements in Kung Fu. Some practitioners will therefore instead opt for a colored sash to denote their rank, or simply wear no belt at all.

On the other hand, if a particular CYKFA instructor chooses the old Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) style of uniform (the open-front, "crossover" jacket like the Japanese martial arts "gi" or Korean "dobok"), the standard cotton belts are more practical. There is no such thing as a "traditional Kung Fu uniform."

The masters of old wore the clothing of their day, and trained in whatever was comfortable. Ching Yi students follow their example; function rules over fashion. Therefore, a CYKFA instructor might just wear a T-shirt and pants for everyday training, a Ch'ing-style jacket with no belt for a public Pa Kua or T'ai Chi demonstration, and a Ming-style jacket and rank belt when giving a performance of self-defense techniques, throws and grappling."

[One student]

kentucky in the 60's? haha funny. maybe on the coasts but in the south? yikes

Everyone who has seen the older posts on this forum know this, but for HSK: When GMT came to U.S. in the 60's, there was no school but Lexington, Ky. No coasts or south, that came much much later. GMT said he retained the gi/belts, and the terminolgy more common to Karate, to honor his teacher, Ie Chang Ming, who used them at his school in Bandung, Indonesia, where Chinese traditions, customs and appearances were discriminated against. No, they weren't outlawed in US, but he kept them to respect his teacher's "tradition," something HSK by the way has preached to us a lot. Later, in the 80's, some of the SD branch schools opted, I understand with GMT's consent, to abandon the gi's/belts for their current look (what a lot of people think are "traditional" kung fu uniforms, although there is no such thing), and also much of the terminology, some even going with "Shaolin Tao."

[One student]

WELL, I'LL ASK THIS, THEN I'LL TRY. iF I SHOWED UP TO PLAY A BASKETBALL GAME IN A BASEBALL OUTFIT WOULD ANYONE POINT, LAUGH AND STARE?

I WOULD SAY YES. REGARDLESS IF THAT GUY IN THE BASEBALL OUTFIT COULD PLAY, PEOPLE WILL STILL ASK WHY THE BASEBALL OUTFIT? OR WHAT IF THE WHOLE BASKETBALL TEAM WORE LAB COATS. WHAT IF I SHOWED UP TO MY WEDDING WHILE EVERYONE ELSE HAS SUITS AND TUX'S ON, BUT I SHOWED UP IN A CLOWN OUTFIT. YOU WOULDN'T ASK WHY? :D I WOULD

IN THE END, IT TELLS ME ABOUT YOUR TRAINING. WHETHER IT WAS AUTHENTIC, MADE UP, BORROWED, OR WHATEVER, IT WOULD INDICATE TO ME WHETHER YOU WERE PROPERLY TRAINED OR NOT.

MAYBE IT ALL FALL DOWN TO BEING HONORABLE. WHO KNOWS. ITS STILL NOT WHAT IT SAYS IT IS IN MY OPINION. BUT WHO AM I RIGHT?

I think the more accurate analogy would be, if someone showed up at a US, NBA, little league, etc., basketball game, wearing a uniform that they might wear in a different country, league, or level, but still a basketball uniform, what would anyone say? Depends if they are there for a fashion show or to play basketball, doesn't it? You're criticizing going to a martial arts class wearing what you (and to your credit, what others also) perceive to be a uniform from a different martial art, not from a different sport entirely.

[One student]

I'm generally okay at understanding the written word. What exactly is it that I'm not getting? You've laid out a number of opinions. Some of them are supported by logic and evidence. Those have been acknowledged. Others are supported by prejudice and ingnorance. Yet others are seemingly mutually exclusive to other opinions you articulate. It's the latter two sets that brother Penn and I have been asking you about. And, in response to those questions, you rarely answer the question that was asked and usually engage in some derisive opinionated hyperbole.

Neither JP nor I have said that SD is authentic shaolin kung fu. We've both suggested that it is not karate; an assertion that is supported by others. We've also both stated that it's Chinese in origin and influenced by Indonesian martial arts; an assertion that is also supported by others and somewhat demonstrable. Nonetheless, you keep calling it karate and saying that people aren't getting you. That, I don't get.

Old Noob is on point and simply correct. The site posted by others here (Ching Yi), also notes that no two people practice kung fu in the same way. That's one thing I've always liked about CMA over TKD or Karate, for example: you see someone do one of those forms well, and another person who does it well, looks exactly alike. Precision in the form is key. Isn't it true in kung fu, it is flexible and yielding, "like water," and each person makes it their own and adapts. That's why the Ching Yi school noted even a teacher and his/her student won't look the same doing the same material.

No one can dispute that GMT took what he got from who he got it from, who got it from who they got it from, a lot of which is rooted in TCMA, and adapted it to their own style and preferences, probably including influences from Indonesia where he learned it, and yes maybe from other influences there or since then. He passed it on, and those he passed it to tweaked it more. That's why you'll see two or more experienced SD practioners, even the older masters, who will and teach the same form differently.

Not saying if that is good or bad, it is what it is. And it'd be the same if SD didn't call itself Shaolin Do from the start. Any name it picked or stuck with or for that matter changed to, wouldn't change what it is: a martial art method and sets of forms taught by GM SKT, based on what he's learned, and how he wants to teach it. If you like it stick with it. If you don't, go somewhere else and do something else. I've always wondered how much animosity there is, from people who have never taken a SD class, that comes from wishing they could have access to such a diverse and multitude of forms and styles to practice. You can get all the forms for fun or exercise, and then really work hard the ones that your body type and skills are suited for, make that the heart of your practice. What's wrong with that? Sure its not the same as going to a school which only teaches a handful of forms, but works the heck out of them, and yes there is virtue to that method. But like I said, if you like the SD way, stick with it, if you want another way, do that instead.

[Syn7]

I guess, in the sense ancient Chivalry also had its good and bad, with Bushido I guess I'd have to reject the parts about if I dishonor my master or sensei or whatever I have to die or something.

Oh don't even get me started on euro style chivalry. It was considered unmanly to bathe. These fukcers sure could fight, but were d1ckheads in every other sense. Every once in a while a good man came around and didn't fold to peer pressure. But you had to be really high born to have the clout to not conform. It wasn't about having stones, many did and died for it.




But you can't argue against the parts about honesty, loyalty to freinds and family (even if the includes a school, kwoon, dojo, etc.), striving to live a virtuous and clean life, defending the weak, hard work towards a worthy goal, things like that. And you don't have to call it Bushido to still strive to walk that path.


No, of course not, you can call it whatever you want. But the moral value in Bushido is cultureless and common in all man. The unique aspects are either just trappings and gilt or some serious bullsh1t. There is nothing in Bushido that is great that you can't find in almost every other culture in some form or another. A few standout cultures may not conform to that, but not many and all examples are clearly morally wrong. For the most part, defending the weak and living clean are basics. Loyalty is another issue. Loyalty is neither moral or immoral, it comes down to what you are loyal to. So loyalty in itself is not a virtue IMO. And loyalty and pride come hand in hand and don't get me started on how much of a weakness pride is.

[Judge Pen]

ive defended myself successfully but i dont consider myself a successful fighter, because i dont fight other fighters in a public venue. i do consider those incidents as successful self defense situations that proved my training has been a benefit though. so yes that is a good thing that people can use their art to defend themselves. did sin the ever fight? like muay thai or sanda or american kickboxing?

I can agree with this statement. I dare say, Lucas, that you feel confident in your ability to fight and defend yourself even though you don't have a fight record and are not, therefore "a successful fighter." I can only speak from my own experience. I have seen a lot of bad sparrers in SD (advanced and otherwise). I've seen some that are good. Not many SD people go outside of their style and participate in open style tournaments (a problem and criticism). Some have. I have. I've done well. Didn't win, but placed and performed respectfully against people of "authentic CMA lineages". There are people on KFO who have seen this, or sparred with me, that can vouch for me that no matter what the origin of SD, I'm no sloach (in fact a detailed account of my sparring by non-SD people have been talked about on KFO in the past). So does that prove anything about SD or me? Debatable, but unless we are talking about a fight record, then ancedotal evidence by mostly anonymous internet posters are all the proof we have.


JP has some skill. He's a good guy. I've sparred him and watched him spar his ass off in a moderate contact tournament, fighting 6 or 7 fights (max 3, 2 min rounds as usual) but in something like just a 2 hour span of time. Irrelevent of the source, he's no slouch.

[Empty_Cup]

Congratulations to Sifu Jerome Cook, who was promoted to Master yesterday!

[Lucas]

I can agree with this statement. I dare say, Lucas, that you feel confident in your ability to fight and defend yourself even though you don't have a fight record and are not, therefore "a successful fighter." I can only speak from my own experience. I have seen a lot of bad sparrers in SD (advanced and otherwise). I've seen some that are good. Not many SD people go outside of their style and participate in open style tournaments (a problem and criticism). Some have. I have. I've done well. Didn't win, but placed and performed respectfully against people of "authentic CMA lineages". There are people on KFO who have seen this, or sparred with me, that can vouch for me that no matter what the origin of SD, I'm no sloach (in fact a detailed account of my sparring by non-SD people have been talked about on KFO in the past). So does that prove anything about SD or me? Debatable, but unless we are talking about a fight record, then ancedotal evidence by mostly anonymous internet posters are all the proof we have.

Ya I remember spying on those discussions ;)

I'd put shaolin-do along with other martial arts in terms of being able to develop a person capable of fighting. As we all know, men will take the tools they have, and make them work if they're intent on doing so.

[Empty_Cup]

Ya I remember spying on those discussions ;)

I'd put shaolin-do along with other martial arts in terms of being able to develop a person capable of fighting. As we all know, men will take the tools they have, and make them work if they're intent on doing so.

"Capable" is the key word there. No matter which system we talk about, it's up to the student to really take it upon themselves to achieve their goals. Teachers can only show the way...

[Old Noob]

Sparring and fighting are interesting. In schools that have belt ranks, I've always found that a person's objective sparring abilities have very little to do with their rank. Lots of things contribute to this. You may have a white belt in your system who has black belts in other martial arts. You may have someone who wrestled or just fought a lot as a kid. On the other hand, you may have black belt who never got in fights as a kid and never so much as lifted a finger to spar until they stepped foot into their first MA school. What is certian is that the black belt almost certainly is a better sparrer/fighter than that same person was when they showed up as a white belt. If that wasn't certain, then I would take a hard look at the system. Outside of the MAs where you have to beat folks of higher rank to advance (like BJJ for instance), I don't think you can look at a guy and be like, "oh he's a so-and-so system black belt and therefore a badass." It just doesn't work like that.

[kwaichang]

Good post, with that said then why do people think or believe that their system is superior to another . Why is that since there are good and bad in every system. It is not like some one loses a fight from a style and automatically their system is absorbed into another greater system. KC;)
Such as Traditional Hung Jia or SD or Wing Chun or SD etc???

[Lucas]

i would say that is generally due to several factors.

1. in-experience

2. ignorance

3. brain washing/misled

4. desire

[Old Noob]

Good post, with that said then why do people think or believe that their system is superior to another . Why is that since there are good and bad in every system. It is not like some one loses a fight from a style and automatically their system is absorbed into another greater system. KC;)
Such as Traditional Hung Jia or SD or Wing Chun or SD etc???

I have never understood why some people claim that their system is superior to all others. I guess I can imagine a circumstance where an evolution within a martial system creates a new system that pretty much renders the older system obsolete and, therefore, inferior. I'm not well versed enough in traditional martial arts to give an example but a good military example is the invention of gunpowder and firearms eventually making plate armor and shields obsolete. Still, the analogy doesn't hold directly. Judo was an evolution from japanese ju jitsu, but traditional ju jitsu players can still give judoka a run for their money. Brazilian ju jitsu was an evolution from judo but judoka can still give BJJ players a run for their money. Consequently, I don't think an objective person can say that bjj is superior to judo is superior to traditional ju jitsu. At the end of the day - and I've inadvertently circled back to my original point - it come down to the skill of the individual within the system. How well has that individual internalized the techniques and made them automatic? How athletic, coordinated, and powerful is that individual naturally? How well suited is the system to the individuals natural strengths and weaknesses?

The more I think about it and write about it, the more I think that anyone who says that a whole system is superior to another is full of it. I believe some systems might be predisposed to be vulnerable to certain aspects of other systems but I couldn't comfortably go further than that.

[Empty_Cup]

I have never understood why some people claim that their system is superior to all others. I guess I can imagine a circumstance where an evolution within a martial system creates a new system that pretty much renders the older system obsolete and, therefore, inferior. I'm not well versed enough in traditional martial arts to give an example but a good military example is the invention of gunpowder and firearms eventually making plate armor and shields obsolete. Still, the analogy doesn't hold directly. Judo was an evolution from japanese ju jitsu, but traditional ju jitsu players can still give judoka a run for their money. Brazilian ju jitsu was an evolution from judo but judoka can still give BJJ players a run for their money. Consequently, I don't think an objective person can say that bjj is superior to judo is superior to traditional ju jitsu. At the end of the day - and I've inadvertently circled back to my original point - it come down to the skill of the individual within the system. How well has that individual internalized the techniques and made them automatic? How athletic, coordinated, and powerful is that individual naturally? How well suited is the system to the individuals natural strengths and weaknesses?

The more I think about it and write about it, the more I think that anyone who says that a whole system is superior to another is full of it. I believe some systems might be predisposed to be vulnerable to certain aspects of other systems but I couldn't comfortably go further than that.

Good post. Just like the cycle of destructino of the 5 elements, I would think each style represents aspects that can gain advantage over other styles but has its own weaknesses.

[Old Noob]

Good post. Just like the cycle of destructino of the 5 elements, I would think each style represents aspects that can gain advantage over other styles but has its own weaknesses.

And each practioner of each style adds his or her own strengths and weaknesses to the calculous.

[kwaichang]

Perhaps this is the reason behind the structural and esthetic appearance of the SD system as it was influenced by IE Chang Ming and GMT and others under him to make SD or S Tao or CSC or what it is what it is today so how do we know what it is or isnt since it has been altered to fit the Physique etc of those who train or teach it. KC

[Judge Pen]

Perhaps this is the reason behind the structural and esthetic appearance of the SD system as it was influenced by IE Chang Ming and GMT and others under him to make SD or S Tao or CSC or what it is what it is today so how do we know what it is or isnt since it has been altered to fit the Physique etc of those who train or teach it. KC

Sure, but that can't be the end of the analysis because that is true of any art. I think one of the reasons is that SD is such a patchwork art. You switch from forms and styles of very divergent systems. Tiger, Crane, Hsing-Ie, Tai chi, Pa Kua, Hua, mantis. All these systems have very distinct mechanics, movement, tempo, flow and power generation. For most people that practice SD (in my experience anyway) these forms bleed into one another. The common denominators seem to rise to the surface. Take Frank's videos for example of a non-SD person: his structual aesthetic is very much influenced by his physique and phsyical stengths and limitations. But all he did was HSCLF so his mechanics, altered as theyh are for him as an individual, are all CLF movements.

You can take our best forms person, have them do Hua and have someone that has only trained in hua do the same form and you will see a significant difference. It's not saying that our Hua isn't good, or that the way we trained wasn't effective, but it does intorduce other elements into our forms and distinguishes us, sometimes severly, from people that only practice in a single style or system.

[Judge Pen]

This was not my idea. Lau Bun, the master that he was, knew gung fu isn't supposed to be passed on in a cookie cutter fashion. reiterated via my sifu, i was taught to own my gung fu.

You're missing my point. I have seen, either in person or on video, you, your sifu, DFW, and various other students in your lineage. You can easisly see the commonality of movement in everyone under your lineage. You can also see the differences of each individual based upon their own personal phsycial strengths and weaknesses (owning the gung fu as you put it). But all of it is related and consistent. It is all HSCLF.

[Old Noob]

You're missing my point. I have seen, either in person or on video, you, your sifu, DFW, and various other students in your lineage. You can easisly see the commonality of movement in everyone under your lineage. You can also see the differences of each individual based upon their own personal phsycial strengths and weaknesses (owning the gung fu as you put it). But all of it is related and consistent. It is all HSCLF.

Exactly! This and your last point are spot on.

SD is like that too. Whether a strength or weakness, the diversity of material in our system has created a habit in nearly all of its students to do the material in a similar way - not a karate way but an SD way. Then, within our system, individuals vary it even more based on their individual strengths and weaknesses.

What's really funny as an SD student is how, even within the system, you can spot a Lexington/Colorado/Tennessee/Texas sub-lineage guy by the way he or she moves.

[Judge Pen]

Exactly! This and your last point are spot on.

SD is like that too. Whether a strength or weakness, the diversity of material in our system has created a habit in nearly all of its students to do the material in a similar way - not a karate way but an SD way. Then, within our system, individuals vary it even more based on their individual strengths and weaknesses.

What's really funny as an SD student is how, even within the system, you can spot a Lexington/Colorado/Tennessee/Texas sub-lineage guy by the way he or she moves.

You can, absolutely. Same with Atlanta and Indiana. I "relearned" much of my material from my first teacher when I started training under Master Garry and his sons. Now people in SD argue about who does it "right" when it doesn't matter as long as you do it well and make it work for you.

[Empty_Cup]

Sure, but that can't be the end of the analysis because that is true of any art. I think one of the reasons is that SD is such a patchwork art. You switch from forms and styles of very divergent systems. Tiger, Crane, Hsing-Ie, Tai chi, Pa Kua, Hua, mantis. All these systems have very distinct mechanics, movement, tempo, flow and power generation. For most people that practice SD (in my experience anyway) these forms bleed into one another. The common denominators seem to rise to the surface. Take Frank's videos for example of a non-SD person: his structual aesthetic is very much influenced by his physique and phsyical stengths and limitations. But all he did was HSCLF so his mechanics, altered as theyh are for him as an individual, are all CLF movements.

You can take our best forms person, have them do Hua and have someone that has only trained in hua do the same form and you will see a significant difference. It's not saying that our Hua isn't good, or that the way we trained wasn't effective, but it does intorduce other elements into our forms and distinguishes us, sometimes severly, from people that only practice in a single style or system.

Bold #1: I agree this is the big danger. But a lot of the responsibility is with the practitioner, not the system. It is up to the student to understand the distinct aspects of each system. I liken it to learning multiple languages. Each language has a different accent and grammatical style. You wouldn't try and force Spanish into a Russian accent and grammar. Some folks still do, and have all kinds of trouble and it sounds horrible.

Bold #2: This can be both a bad and a good thing. As mentioned in #1, it's bad if these systems all lose their identity and become some flavorless morass of movement. It's good if these systems can be used to complement each other. How many of you have ever practiced a technique and, using knowledge from another style, had a new understanding of what could make that technique better?

I reject the notion that incorporating elements of different systems into others is a black & white issue. Yes, it can have its downsides. But it can also have its upsides. It's up to the student to get to the principles of the techniques/systems and understand them.

[kwaichang]

Moving like someone does not mean the movemnt is a exact copy of what one sees, learn a series of moves then teach them then look at what you have taught, there is change even at this point. Also if one learns the NATURE OF AN ART SUCH AS , Crane :Bird, Tiger :feline Dragon etc. Then ones moves will be different in each style, but only in essence , not in Physicality, a punch is a punch is a punch, in SD the Lohan or 1-30 are taught as a base. this is why the SD system looks as it does. THe Neuro pathways are ingrained and this bleeds over into the other methods < Tiger etc. so I think it is more of a Neuro training through repetition that causes the style to look as it does, not as some would think , that it is Karate not Kung Fu. KC

[Judge Pen]

Bold #1: I agree this is the big danger. But a lot of the responsibility is with the practitioner, not the system. It is up to the student to understand the distinct aspects of each system. I liken it to learning multiple languages. Each language has a different accent and grammatical style. You wouldn't try and force Spanish into a Russian accent and grammar. Some folks still do, and have all kinds of trouble and it sounds horrible.

Bold #2: This can be both a bad and a good thing. As mentioned in #1, it's bad if these systems all lose their identity and become some flavorless morass of movement. It's good if these systems can be used to complement each other. How many of you have ever practiced a technique and, using knowledge from another style, had a new understanding of what could make that technique better?

I reject the notion that incorporating elements of different systems into others is a black & white issue. Yes, it can have its downsides. But it can also have its upsides. It's up to the student to get to the principles of the techniques/systems and understand them.

Comment to Bold 1: I agree that much of it is on the practitioner, but I don't think you can acquit the system or the teacher. If the teacher/system takes it's time in teacherng the fundamentals of each system, training excercises, philosophy, applications and if they make usre that each student has a fundamental understanding of that system before moving on to something different then I think a patchwork system might work better. All too often, material gets rushed or there is an emphasis on learning the next set. I think that the best examples of SD are from the people that really work on this on their own. I think SD introduces the elements, but many teachers, and students, often rush through it.

Comment to Bold 2: It's not a black and white issue, but when you are teaching, counting seminars, 30 forms before black (and an average of 2.5 to 3.5 years to get there) it seems like it is difficult to truly understand the nuances of a system before moving on to another.

[Judge Pen]

Moving like someone does not mean the movemnt is a exact copy of what one sees, learn a series of moves then teach them then look at what you have taught, there is change even at this point. Also if one learns the NATURE OF AN ART SUCH AS , Crane :Bird, Tiger :feline Dragon etc. Then ones moves will be different in each style, but only in essence , not in Physicality, a punch is a punch is a punch, in SD the Lohan or 1-30 are taught as a base. this is why the SD system looks as it does. THe Neuro pathways are ingrained and this bleeds over into the other methods < Tiger etc. so I think it is more of a Neuro training through repetition that causes the style to look as it does, not as some would think , that it is Karate not Kung Fu. KC

I think you are right. We spend so much time on short form that its the backbone of SD and bleeds into tiger, Tai Pang, Mantis, and most everything else. That is why is was very disconcerting to read in a deposition under oath that the short-form was fabricated by Master The. That he based it on the legends of the 108 Lohan, but he doesn't know the 108 and has never seen it. (This is just what he thought it should look like).

[Judge Pen]

Knowing that he did this, but tried to pass it off as truth, doesn't this bother you? doesn't it make want to question the rest? i know if this happened to me it would be a terrible awakening. i feel bad for all those who've been fooled.

But, if shaolin do is going to survive through all of this, i would hope the truth about its real or unreal connection to Shaolin gets put to rest. Call Shaolin Do a modern system, but as it is, the history is highly questionable

Yes it does bother me. I take testimony under oath very seriously. I have heard it suggested that Sin The lied under oath and this material is legitimate, but he had to claim it as fabricated in order to avail himself the protection of copyright laws. (The tale is that a defense to one of Sin The's early attempts to sue a former student for copyright violations was defended by his brother presenting evidence that the material was not made up and he had notes to prove it.). IF that's true then there might be some legitimate lineage to the material, but it does not condone someone willing to lie under oath to protect his corner of the economy.

The thing about the short-form is that it's pretty good stuff. It's effective as both a means of teaching/training in fundamental martial techniques and the techniques it teaches are efficient and effective. If he made it up from whole cloth, then he has some skill and talent to do so and it's a shame he lied about it. If he didn't make it up, then I'd like to know the true history or lineage of it.

As it stands, I will not know the truth. All I have is my own understanding of the material and the peace I have in myself that I can use it effectively (whatever it is).

[Judge Pen]

i'm sure there is SOMETHING there. however, there arethings like what shaolin temple was destroyed in the mid 1800's?

now, if he made it up, and its effective then give HIM the credit. don't claim it was shaolin. but the moment a teacher is caught lying, i would quetstion everything else.

i've always told my sifu, "even if you taught me pure garbage, you taught me enough to know how to make that garbage work".

We agree on this Frank.

[Fa Xing]

This was not my idea. Lau Bun, the master that he was, knew gung fu isn't supposed to be passed on in a cookie cutter fashion. reiterated via my sifu, i was taught to own my gung fu.

Which is the way it is supposed to be.

[Old Noob]

Yes it does bother me. I take testimony under oath very seriously. I have heard it suggested that Sin The lied under oath and this material is legitimate, but he had to claim it as fabricated in order to avail himself the protection of copyright laws. (The tale is that a defense to one of Sin The's early attempts to sue a former student for copyright violations was defended by his brother presenting evidence that the material was not made up and he had notes to prove it.). IF that's true then there might be some legitimate lineage to the material, but it does not condone someone willing to lie under oath to protect his corner of the economy.

The thing about the short-form is that it's pretty good stuff. It's effective as both a means of teaching/training in fundamental martial techniques and the techniques it teaches are efficient and effective. If he made it up from whole cloth, then he has some skill and talent to do so and it's a shame he lied about it. If he didn't make it up, then I'd like to know the true history or lineage of it.

As it stands, I will not know the truth. All I have is my own understanding of the material and the peace I have in myself that I can use it effectively (whatever it is).

It's incredibly bothersome either way, whether he lied under oath or merely to the entirety of his student body. I probably won't know either way either. But, if he made up the 30 short forms then the odds are that he made up a significant amount of material through at least 1st Black. 18 is all over 1st brown material. 1 and 2 are all over all the material to include the tiger/crane forms he's teaching out now at seminars. This goes back to what JP is saying; of he did make it up, it's good stuff. Why not take the credit. I know that there wasn't much out there in the 60s but Bruce Lee sure didn't suffer in his marketing because he made his stuff up so why would Sin The have suffered if he had marketed SD as an improvement on what the Indonesian masters taught him. It's definitely a mystery. Honestly, I think I'm able to keep trianing in it because my school is so far removed from all the SD centers of gravity and I don't have to get involved in it very much.

[Judge Pen]

It's incredibly bothersome either way, whether he lied under oath or merely to the entirety of his student body. I probably won't know either way either. But, if he made up the 30 short forms then the odds are that he made up a significant amount of material through at least 1st Black. 18 is all over 1st brown material. 1 and 2 are all over all the material to include the tiger/crane forms he's teaching out now at seminars. This goes back to what JP is saying; of he did make it up, it's good stuff. Why not take the credit. I know that there wasn't much out there in the 60s but Bruce Lee sure didn't suffer in his marketing because he made his stuff up so why would Sin The have suffered if he had marketed SD as an improvement on what the Indonesian masters taught him. It's definitely a mystery. Honestly, I think I'm able to keep trianing in it because my school is so far removed from all the SD centers of gravity and I don't have to get involved in it very much.

His justification in the deposition for not taking credit for the forms he claims he created was under the guise of "humility". I don't buy that.

[Fa Xing]

After reading the past posts, I have to say something about the mixing stuff and a little from a JKD perspective: I think cross-training is a fantastic idea with one exception, and that is are you just doing a mish-mash because you can and want to or are you being smart about it and maintaining a specific structure and not sacrificing that structure.

For example, say I am studying and training in Style E (external), my structure while sparring/fighting truly represents that style's structure yet at the same time I have adapted that structure to my own body's structure, thus I am able to make it work. Now let's say I see someone training Style I (internal), and think that it looks really cool and that there is some benefit to that particular movement, so instead of just learning a brand new style altogether (there's nothing wrong with that BTW), I decided I know what works and doesn't work, and therefore pick what I can to absorb for my particular structure. In this way I have not sacrificed what I know for a totally new structure, and thus avoiding "jack of all trades, master of none."

[Empty_Cup]

It's incredibly bothersome either way, whether he lied under oath or merely to the entirety of his student body. I probably won't know either way either. But, if he made up the 30 short forms then the odds are that he made up a significant amount of material through at least 1st Black. 18 is all over 1st brown material. 1 and 2 are all over all the material to include the tiger/crane forms he's teaching out now at seminars. This goes back to what JP is saying; of he did make it up, it's good stuff. Why not take the credit. I know that there wasn't much out there in the 60s but Bruce Lee sure didn't suffer in his marketing because he made his stuff up so why would Sin The have suffered if he had marketed SD as an improvement on what the Indonesian masters taught him. It's definitely a mystery. Honestly, I think I'm able to keep trianing in it because my school is so far removed from all the SD centers of gravity and I don't have to get involved in it very much.

From what I've seen thus far I personally believe that GMT made up the material and it seems like EML's follow-up letter went along with this story. I think this would mean his testimony under oath was sincere but it would also mean the marketing is completely off as far as that material goes. Since I never really cared about the marketing it doesn't effect me or my training, but I definitely agree that this material should be presented honestly.

How much of the material is made up and how much was learned via GM Ie, we'll probably never know. And what is GMT's mindset with regards to correcting/clarifying the current marketing of the material, we might never know that either. As of right now, it appears he's content to let it stand despite the many accusations.

What I do know is that it has no bearing on my relationship with my sifu and the respect I have for him and the material he has taught. There has always been a grain of salt taken with origins of forms and history since so much of it is 4th, 5th, 6th-hand accounts nowadays.

[Old Noob]

After reading the past posts, I have to say something about the mixing stuff and a little from a JKD perspective: I think cross-training is a fantastic idea with one exception, and that is are you just doing a mish-mash because you can and want to or are you being smart about it and maintaining a specific structure and not sacrificing that structure.

I do think that's what SD has done. Like it or not, what some people talk about as the Karateness of SD, relates to the base structure of how we do our material (also, to some extent the way and rapidity with which it is taught). I also don't think that it's being incorporated in a haphazard nonsensical way. I'll mirror again what JP said; if it is made up, its organization is brilliant curriculum-wise.

My biggest problem is just the honesty stuff. I think cross-trianing is preferable. Even in MMA, pure stand-up fighters need to learn enough about wrestling and ju jitsu to defend against it.

I readily incorporated my wrestling into my sparring into the SD curriculum, which is sweep heavy any way. I'm incorporating judo to give me more options for moving the fight to the ground in a decisive fashion and for putting locks on quickly at the end of throws.

[Judge Pen]

From what I've seen thus far I personally believe that GMT made up the material and it seems like EML's follow-up letter went along with this story. I think this would mean his testimony under oath was sincere but it would also mean the marketing is completely off as far as that material goes. Since I never really cared about the marketing it doesn't effect me or my training, but I definitely agree that this material should be presented honestly.

How much of the material is made up and how much was learned via GM Ie, we'll probably never know. And what is GMT's mindset with regards to correcting/clarifying the current marketing of the material, we might never know that either. As of right now, it appears he's content to let it stand despite the many accusations.

What I do know is that it has no bearing on my relationship with my sifu and the respect I have for him and the material he has taught. There has always been a grain of salt taken with origins of forms and history since so much of it is 4th, 5th, 6th-hand accounts nowadays.

I take issue with Leonard's letter. He glossed over what Sin The actually testified to and said "well of course GM The 'simplified' forms for us Americans" With all due respect, fabricating forms and calling them original shaolin material and simplifying traditional material are very different things. It was an opportunity to course-correct SD from as close to the top as you can get, but he kept up the revisionist history.

[Empty_Cup]

I take issue with Leonard's letter. He glossed over what Sin The actually testified to and said "well of course GM The 'simplified' forms for us Americans" With all due respect, fabricating forms and calling them original shaolin material and simplifying traditional material are very different things. It was an opportunity to course-correct SD from as close to the top as you can get, but he kept up the revisionist history.

True. I was specifically referring to the part about how that had been common knowledge and fully disclosed "back in the day." I understand your point and agree that was a pivotal moment.

[brucereiter]

I take issue with Leonard's letter. He glossed over what Sin The actually testified to and said "well of course GM The 'simplified' forms for us Americans" With all due respect, fabricating forms and calling them original shaolin material and simplifying traditional material are very different things. It was an opportunity to course-correct SD from as close to the top as you can get, but he kept up the revisionist history.

Hey man,

Do you know where I can view a copy of bill Leonard's letter? I have searched with no luck.

On a side note several years ago when I asked sin the in private about tai chi 64 and the 24 form he looked me in he eyes and said they are from the shaolin temple and "we" practice them like the monks have for "1000's" of years.

I do believe he lied to my face that day. That was the beginning of the end of my involvement in his system.

Bill leonard may be an amazing fighter and could probably kick my ass. Some of his students may even threaten to kick my ass for sharing some of my opinions here.. Lol...

I will not speak about the external side of sin kwang the system since I did not study it but I will say I think bill Leonard's and sin kwang the's understanding of tai chi chuan, Pakua and hsing I are crazy they are simply doing something entirely different art than every single person I have watched doing those styles. I have been around the world and have met the good, bad and ugly of the ima practicioners. Some great fighters and some people who's heads are in he clouds. None were even similar to the or leonard.

Some people have made excuses like his knees are bad or my least favorite " this is the way it was done back in he temple".

It ****es me off that sin the will not just give a straight answer. I am a grown man, it is insulting to tell me stories lik I was a child. The stories and Santa Claus have something in common. Smelly poo.

And that stupid book he wrote is full of bull****e.

The 64 rules of Pakua we taught to me as if sin the authored them. The papers given to me said written by sin the. It should have said translated by sin the. It was presented as if it was his and that it was passed down from the temple. I had other translations of the same thing. Sin the even used the and drawings that jiang rong qiao's daughter made for jiangs book.

There is just too much bull**** and lies. Why can't they just be open an honest.

The chen tai chi that sin the does and that bill leonard does should be called something else. They have taught zero application or martial methods with this style and in my observations of both of hem doing the chen 83 form ave no understanding of it.

Why is the hsing I soooooooo very different from all other hsing I in the world? Again bill leonard has a strange understanding of what hsing I is.

Booooooooooooooo

[Judge Pen]

Hey man,

Do you know where I can view a copy of bill Leonard's letter? I have searched with no luck.

On a side note several years ago when I asked sin the in private about tai chi 64 and the 24 form he looked me in he eyes and said they are from the shaolin temple and "we" practice them like the monks have for "1000's" of years.

I do believe he lied to my face that day. That was the beginning of the end of my involvement in his system.

Bill leonard may be an amazing fighter and could probably kick my ass. Some of his students may even threaten to kick my ass for sharing some of my opinions here.. Lol...

I will not speak about the external side of sin kwang the system since I did not study it but I will say I think bill Leonard's and sin kwang the's understanding of tai chi chuan, Pakua and hsing I are crazy they are simply doing something entirely different art than every single person I have watched doing those styles. I have been around the world and have met the good, bad and ugly of the ima practicioners. Some great fighters and some people who's heads are in he clouds. None were even similar to the or leonard.

Some people have made excuses like his knees are bad or my least favorite " this is the way it was done back in he temple".

It ****es me off that sin the will not just give a straight answer. I am a grown man, it is insulting to tell me stories lik I was a child. The stories and Santa Claus have something in common. Smelly poo.

And that stupid book he wrote is full of bull****e.

The 64 rules of Pakua we taught to me as if sin the authored them. The papers given to me said written by sin the. It should have said translated by sin the. It was presented as if it was his and that it was passed down from the temple. I had other translations of the same thing. Sin the even used the and drawings that jiang rong qiao's daughter made for jiangs book.

There is just too much bull**** and lies. Why can't they just be open an honest.

The chen tai chi that sin the does and that bill leonard does should be called something else. They have taught zero application or martial methods with this style and in my observations of both of hem doing the chen 83 form ave no understanding of it.

Why is the hsing I soooooooo very different from all other hsing I in the world? Again bill leonard has a strange understanding of what hsing I is.

Booooooooooooooo

Bruce, PM me your e-mail and I'll send you a copy. I printed off a copy after it was written because I suspected it too would be pulled by the powers that be.

As for the rest of the stuff, you won't find me arguing with you at all. I still have great respect for my teachers who taught me directly and believe that they taught with their entire heart and soul, but that can't justify the fairy tales and lies that surround this system.

[Judge Pen]

True. I was specifically referring to the part about how that had been common knowledge and fully disclosed "back in the day." I understand your point and agree that was a pivotal moment.

Yeah, but what he said "was common knowledge" was the simplification of existing forms not the fabrication of new forms. Here there was a black and white statement that was ignored and rephrased into something of an entirely different meaning. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. It's insulting.

[Empty_Cup]

Yeah, but what he said "was common knowledge" was the simplification of existing forms not the fabrication of new forms. Here there was a black and white statement that was ignored and rephrased into something of an entirely different meaning. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. It's insulting.

Yep, EML didn't directly address the statements GMT made in the deposition about making up material and calling them by traditional names. This is what you're referring to when you say "fabrication of new forms," correct?

@ bruce: There were a number of things in your post but I wanted to address what you mentioned about Chen taiji. I haven't traveled the world like you have but from other videos I have seen on the web (including your own) I don't see major differences between those and what I've been taught thus far. What are you referring to specifically when you say, "they have no understanding of it"?

[Judge Pen]

Yep, EML didn't directly address the statements GMT made in the deposition about making up material and calling them by traditional names. This is what you're referring to when you say "fabrication of new forms," correct?

@ bruce: There were a number of things in your post but I wanted to address what you mentioned about Chen taiji. I haven't traveled the world like you have but from other videos I have seen on the web (including your own) I don't see major differences between those and what I've been taught thus far. What are you referring to specifically when you say, "they have no understanding of it"?

Yes that's what I mean. That's what Sin the did and Leonard talked about something else entirely.

[brucereiter]

Yep, EML didn't directly address the statements GMT made in the deposition about making up material and calling them by traditional names. This is what you're referring to when you say "fabrication of new forms," correct?

@ bruce: There were a number of things in your post but I wanted to address what you mentioned about Chen taiji. I haven't traveled the world like you have but from other videos I have seen on the web (including your own) I don't see major differences between those and what I've been taught thus far. What are you referring to specifically when you say, "they have no understanding of it"?

On specific thing I am referring to is in hsing I it is a must that body and hand arrive at the same time. This is defiantly not happening with bill leonard.

Another thing is with tai chi chuan specifically chen style the hands must also submit to the center and move as a result of the center moving. Bill leonard just moves slow and flaps his arms around in my observations.

Pakua they focus more on the stupid animal noises than the actual martial art. Why does no other jiang rong qiao system of Pakua make these silly noises? They tried to tell me it is because they are the real deal and the monks made those same noises.

Full of s.h.i.t.e

I should have said a misguided understanding or a very low level of understanding the use of the word "no" may be a mistake.

I am traveling right now. I will share a few very short videos of both of them doing chen tai chi chuan and hsing I. Then you can see for yourself.

Both arts have specific methods that i see observed in every other system other that sin the and leonard or the soards for that matter.

Take the hsing I or tai chi chuan form as a example. Since I show myself doing it... Look at the way any numbers of people express these styles from any system and you in my opinion will see something very different in sin the and bill leonard. Why is it so different?

[brucereiter]

Yep, EML didn't directly address the statements GMT made in the deposition about making up material and calling them by traditional names. This is what you're referring to when you say "fabrication of new forms," correct?

@ bruce: There were a number of things in your post but I wanted to address what you mentioned about Chen taiji. I haven't traveled the world like you have but from other videos I have seen on the web (including your own) I don't see major differences between those and what I've been taught thus far. What are you referring to specifically when you say, "they have no understanding of it"?

My chen will look more like sin the since I learned it from gary grooms who learned it from sin the but both grooms and I do it very different from sin the and very different from each other. My chen is a *******ized version of what I could pick up from others and what made sense to me. It is not " authentic traditional chen tai chi chuan" that I personally practice but I do think i have created value it it through my own hard practice.

Anyways when I get home I will post a few short videos and you can share your observations with me.

My videos only show my level of understanding on the day I made them. I am only a student... Not a "grandmaster" or 9th degree elder master. I would expect more from the and leonard and was very disappointed once I really saw and understood what they were showing and teaching.

[bodhi warrior]

My chen will look more like sin the since I learned it from gary grooms who learned it from sin the but both grooms and I do it very different from sin the and very different from each other. My chen is a *******ized version of what I could pick up from others and what made sense to me. It is not " authentic traditional chen tai chi chuan" that I personally practice but I do think i have created value it it through my own hard practice.

Anyways when I get home I will post a few short videos and you can share your observations with me.

My videos only show my level of understanding on the day I made them. I am only a student... Not a "grandmaster" or 9th degree elder master. I would expect more from the and leonard and was very disappointed once I really saw and understood what they were showing and teaching.

I learned pakua back in '85 or '86 from sin the'. It was a month or two class. We were never taught to make animal noises. But I've seen numerous videos of Ted mancuso, Novell bell, jerry Allen Johnson, kang gewu, and Gerald sharp and I can say our jiang form is very close to how others perform it. And each of those masters had their own flavor and way of moving.

[Judge Pen]

I learned pakua back in '85 or '86 from sin the'. It was a month or two class. We were never taught to make animal noises. But I've seen numerous videos of Ted mancuso, Novell bell, jerry Allen Johnson, kang gewu, and Gerald sharp and I can say our jiang form is very close to how others perform it. And each of those masters had their own flavor and way of moving.

I was told by my teacher that it was optional to make a bat noise int he 4th section. I never did it.:p

[Old Noob]

Perhaps you are talking about two different Pa Kua forms? The 1st Black Pa Kua doesn't have any animal noises as far as I know. There's an animal Pa Kua form later; no?

[Empty_Cup]

...
I am traveling right now. I will share a few very short videos of both of them doing chen tai chi chuan and hsing I. Then you can see for yourself.

...

Sounds good.


...My chen is a *******ized version of what I could pick up from others and what made sense to me. It is not " authentic traditional chen tai chi chuan" that I personally practice but I do think i have created value it it through my own hard practice.

...

I don't think anybody really knows what authentic chen looks like anymore. Taking the practice and making it work for you based on your understanding is definitely the goal of all of this in my opinion! Sounds great, and can't wait to see what you post. This kind of discussion is the reason I came to this forum for sure.

[Empty_Cup]

Perhaps you are talking about two different Pa Kua forms? The 1st Black Pa Kua doesn't have any animal noises as far as I know. There's an animal Pa Kua form later; no?

I am currently training Classical Pa Kua and have seen 8 Animal Pa Kua performed. Classical does not have any animal noises and 8 Animal does not have a bat at all. The animals are (in the set we practice) Phoenix, Dragon, Bear, Tiger, Snake, Monkey, Horse, Eagle. These also do not have an animal noise associated or performed with them IIRC. Again, I have only seen 8 Animal performed a couple times and have not learned it yet.

EDIT: Here is the pinyin for the 8 Animal form we practice, for those interested: Ba Gua Zhang Ba Xing Zhang

[Judge Pen]

I was told by my teachers that you can do a bat sound in section 4. They did not do it personally when they performed the form, but that is what Sin The taught my teacher. I would suspect that this is often not taught or discussed because, frankly, its silly.

My first teacher did not teach that.

By the way, how many are taught to laugh in Hsing Ie? Other animal sounds in other forms?

[bodhi warrior]

I was told by my teachers that you can do a bat sound in section 4. They did not do it personally when they performed the form, but that is what Sin The taught my teacher. I would suspect that this is often not taught or discussed because, frankly, its silly.

My first teacher did not teach that.

By the way, how many are taught to laugh in Hsing Ie? Other animal sounds in other forms?

I was taught hsing Ie by my teacher, who was taught by sin the'. He said sin taught a laugh in the Linkage form.

[Judge Pen]

I was taught hsing Ie by my teacher, who was taught by sin the'. He said sin taught a laugh in the Linkage form.

That's it.

[Empty_Cup]

I was taught hsing Ie by my teacher, who was taught by sin the'. He said sin taught a laugh in the Linkage form.

That's how we're currently taught in the LInkage form as well.

[bodhi warrior]

the laugh is a hung gar thing isn't it?

Not sure. I'm not that familiar with hung gar.

[sean_stonehart]

I don't think anybody really knows what authentic chen looks like anymore. Taking the practice and making it work for you based on your understanding is definitely the goal of all of this in my opinion! Sounds great, and can't wait to see what you post. This kind of discussion is the reason I came to this forum for sure.

Actually youtube any Chen family member doing Xinjia Yi Lu. That's what that set should look like. If doesn't look like that it's not right.

[bodhi warrior]

if its a HA-HA-HA-HA-HA type laugh then its from Hung Gar.

What set would that be?

[Snipsky]

wow, this is such a load of horse pocky

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r3Y-d8jpnI

"So what?!. did you not practice your tai Chi and Pak Kua skills?"

excuse me while i throw up

[Empty_Cup]

Actually youtube any Chen family member doing Xinjia Yi Lu. That's what that set should look like. If doesn't look like that it's not right.

Something like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqH-lnbrgA8

[Empty_Cup]

if its a HA-HA-HA-HA-HA type laugh then its from Hung Gar.

Actually, it's more of a HA-HA-HA type of laugh

[sean_stonehart]

Something like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqH-lnbrgA8

Yep... good example.

[Empty_Cup]

Something like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqH-lnbrgA8


Yep... good example.

Compared to the example, yes this is similar to what we practice. The sequencing is nearly identical and the actual movement is similar enough.

There are some slight differences w.r.t. height of stances and continuity between postures but I think these fall within the normal variation you'd see with any form.

[brucereiter]

Sounds good.



I don't think anybody really knows what authentic chen looks like anymore. Taking the practice and making it work for you based on your understanding is definitely the goal of all of this in my opinion! Sounds great, and can't wait to see what you post. This kind of discussion is the reason I came to this forum for sure.

http://www.youtube.com/user/shaolindointernal

there are several videos of bill leonard and sin the doing tai chi chuan, pakua and hsing i.
you tell me what you think it looks like. keep in mind these are the top 2 people in shaolin do.

[bodhi warrior]

http://www.youtube.com/user/shaolindointernal

there are several videos of bill leonard and sin the doing tai chi churn, pakua and hsing i.
you tell me what you think it looks like. keep in mind these are the top 2 people in shaolin do.


Bill Leonard is not a very good forms person. I know he's a good fighter, but his forms are just bad.
That chen style that is shown is jacked up and obviously was picked up in a very short amount of time. It's sad really, because you can tell sin would be impressive to watch if he would have stayed with what he was actually taught.
The Pakua video was too short. I learned it before his body building mullet stage. Seems the bodybuilding made him more rigid.

[Baqualin]

Something like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqH-lnbrgA8

That is Grand Master Chen Xiaowang doing the 1st part of the new frame or Chen 83....Chen Tai Chi has been kept intact by the Chen Family and should look the same now as it always has (other than individual flavor). Of the Chen forms (IMO) Cannon Fist is the ****!

[brucereiter]

Bill Leonard is not a very good forms person. I know he's a good fighter, but his forms are just bad.

i am sure bill leonard is or was a very strong and skilled fighter but that does not mean he is doing chen/hsing i or what ever. the old excuse's i heard for his "bad" forms is "thats the way the monks in the temple used to do it".



That chen style that is shown is jacked up and obviously was picked up in a very short amount of time. It's sad really, because you can tell sin would be impressive to watch if he would have stayed with what he was actually taught.

and this is one huge problem with shaolin do. people learn a whole "style" in a very short time and then teach it with their limited understanding of it. each time it gets ****her and ****her away from the source.
i think sin the is and has been in incredible physical condition and can do many things i will never be able to do but that does not change what i perceive from seeing these videos and seeing him in person





The Pakua video was too short. I learned it before his body building mullet stage. Seems the bodybuilding made him more rigid.
the important part of the pakuastuff i wanted to illustrate is his single palm change which is a basic and fundamental part of pakua which i think he is missing. what i mean by single palm change is the turn when he changes directions.

[brucereiter]

now this is Chen Tai Chi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS0QYq26V2g

and it looks nothing like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiCzfoxTq5Y&feature=plcp

**** spell checker makes chuan into churn!!!!

Sin The's chen Tai Chi should be called Sin The Tai Chi.
i've never seen anything move that we he does.

and JAKE THE FAKE is completely missing whats in this video. if you can't see it, don't bother asking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJMNGDzD5bI&feature=relmfu

chen yu is what i think of as chen tai chi chuan. he is a clip. there are many of him doing form, push hands and applications. in my opinion all very impressive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SSiRbTAn3A

i really do not get sin the and his interpritation of chen tai chi chuan. "they" told me that this chen style sin the does is from the shaolin temple. on a china trip he was told it was 17th gen and not what ever he had been calling it. that "sounds" old right? well it was still taught that it came from the fukien shaoilin temple and is the most ancient form of tai chi chuan.

**** information age ;-0

[brucereiter]

these are the top final word and reference of what shaolin do "internal" is. what are your opinions? i think they are missing a lot of understanding of these arts.

bill leonard hsing i
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD71yIJq_jU&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn2bCmsOejk&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6qVYXEbWmk&feature=plcp

bill leonard chen tai chi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiCzfoxTq5Y&feature=plcp

sin the chen tai chi chuan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwbbEl6Ye6E&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1CGWQ_FyQI&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_SRZJYK2Vw&feature=plcp

i am not poking fun just looking objectively. one could look at my own videos and find faults and many have :cool::cool: but i do not claim to be a grand master or 9th degree master over a system of martial arts and have the material "straight from the temple" "just the way the monks used to practice" both of these men have claimed to be masters of these arts.

[Empty_Cup]

these are the top final word and reference of what shaolin do "internal" is. what are your opinions? i think they are missing a lot of understanding of these arts.

bill leonard hsing i
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD71yIJq_jU&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn2bCmsOejk&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6qVYXEbWmk&feature=plcp

sin the chen tai chi chuan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiCzfoxTq5Y&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwbbEl6Ye6E&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1CGWQ_FyQI&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_SRZJYK2Vw&feature=plcp

i am not poking fun just looking objectively. one could look at my own videos and find faults and many have :cool::cool: but i do not claim to be a grand master or 9th degree master over a system of martial arts and have the material "straight from the temple" "just the way the monks used to practice" both of these men have claimed to be masters of these arts.

Just FYI...your first video under "sin the chen tai chi chuan" looks to be EML, not GMS.

So in the examples showing the beginning of the Chen 83 form, do folks consider the sequencing of GMS and GM Xiaowang to be drastically different? The same? Similar but different interpretations? What do folks think? We can talk actual execution but let's talk sequencing first.

[bodhi warrior]

Just FYI...your first video under "sin the chen tai chi chuan" looks to be EML, not GMS.

So in the examples showing the beginning of the Chen 83 form, do folks consider the sequencing of GMS and GM Xiaowang to be drastically different? The same? Similar but different interpretations? What do folks think? We can talk actual execution but let's talk sequencing first.

Sin the's version has more hand waving.

[brucereiter]

Just FYI...your first video under "sin the chen tai chi chuan" looks to be EML, not GMS.

my typo... thanks i corrected it.



So in the examples showing the beginning of the Chen 83 form, do folks consider the sequencing of GMS and GM Xiaowang to be drastically different? The same? Similar but different interpretations? What do folks think? We can talk actual execution but let's talk sequencing first.

the "sequence" is the same. but sin the and bill leonard both ignore or are ignorant of some of the things that make chen tai chi chuan different. look at the direction of the hips vs the hands with most any chen xin jia (new frame 17th gen) you will see at least similarities in "body method"

============================================
he is a clip of me doing the start of yang and the start of chen xin jia. i am not an expert and many would say it is not even chen tai chi but i do think it is approaching the right path in some ways. in addition i have found value in the martial ideas i reverse engineered from practicing it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvaC2h1X5qw
============================================

i think these guys and many of their students have some great chen tai chi chuan skills.

feng zhiqiang
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3A_0zCbYNM&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNP8s2wf2CA
==========================================
chen yu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsvspxBUvZ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAkfGSkcklg&feature=related
==========================================
chen xioawang
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqH-lnbrgA8
==========================================
Chen Xiao Xing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIDPVkxUKDk&feature=related