Ou Ji
06-17-2005, 11:45 AM
Something funny occured to me and I'm sure I'll get railed for it but think about this:
Style X has all the sets and techniques that are found in styles Y and Z.
This means that style X is the original style and that styles Y and Z only have pieces of it so they are not the real style. (Reference the Lama Pai discussions and the Shaolin Do discussions) Both claim to be the original of their respective styles.
Style X has all the sets and techniques that are found in styles Y and Z (and the rest of the alphabet). This means that style X has stolen from the original styles and is therefore fake. (Reference the Shaolin Do discussions) Claims made against Shaolin Do but not against Lama Pai.
So when Shaolin Do says that other styles come from them (since they claim to be the original Shaolin style) and they use the similarity between their sets and others to substantiate their claim, nobody believes them. But when Lama Pai (lkfdmc) says the same about other Lama styles it's readily accepted.
Now when Lama Pai (original per lkfmdc) says that other Lama styles are just pieces of the original it seems to me that it could also be argued that lkfmdc's Lama Pai is a compilation of pieces of other styles (the argument against SD). Especially in light of the fact that his Sifu admittedly trained in other styles.
Believe me this isn't an attempt at trolling. It just seems to me that the basis of the argument in both situations is pretty much the same yet the concensus is that one is accepted while the other is completely discounted.
For the record I don't believe the Shaolin Do hype. It may have been originally based off of Shaolin but It's morphed into something entirely different today.
I also don't doubt that CTS was a fighter and had skills. It's just that I don't care much for the 'we have the real deal because yours doen't look like ours' argument. Seems to me it can go both ways in either of these two instances.
I don't think anyone has the original of any style unless it's a recent creation. They've all been changed over the years, stuff added and stuff subtracted. I just think it's funny that these arguments continue and that logic applied to one somehow doesn't apply to others. Just a thought.
Style X has all the sets and techniques that are found in styles Y and Z.
This means that style X is the original style and that styles Y and Z only have pieces of it so they are not the real style. (Reference the Lama Pai discussions and the Shaolin Do discussions) Both claim to be the original of their respective styles.
Style X has all the sets and techniques that are found in styles Y and Z (and the rest of the alphabet). This means that style X has stolen from the original styles and is therefore fake. (Reference the Shaolin Do discussions) Claims made against Shaolin Do but not against Lama Pai.
So when Shaolin Do says that other styles come from them (since they claim to be the original Shaolin style) and they use the similarity between their sets and others to substantiate their claim, nobody believes them. But when Lama Pai (lkfdmc) says the same about other Lama styles it's readily accepted.
Now when Lama Pai (original per lkfmdc) says that other Lama styles are just pieces of the original it seems to me that it could also be argued that lkfmdc's Lama Pai is a compilation of pieces of other styles (the argument against SD). Especially in light of the fact that his Sifu admittedly trained in other styles.
Believe me this isn't an attempt at trolling. It just seems to me that the basis of the argument in both situations is pretty much the same yet the concensus is that one is accepted while the other is completely discounted.
For the record I don't believe the Shaolin Do hype. It may have been originally based off of Shaolin but It's morphed into something entirely different today.
I also don't doubt that CTS was a fighter and had skills. It's just that I don't care much for the 'we have the real deal because yours doen't look like ours' argument. Seems to me it can go both ways in either of these two instances.
I don't think anyone has the original of any style unless it's a recent creation. They've all been changed over the years, stuff added and stuff subtracted. I just think it's funny that these arguments continue and that logic applied to one somehow doesn't apply to others. Just a thought.