I'll check out her classes but I highly doubt I'd train there. It doesn't look any better than USSD.
Printable View
even Master Sin has admited that he has not mastered all the forms or styles ..... but not to too many people mind you...
the title of master does not mean sh** now adays.... grand master is just the title for the holder of the system or the highest master in the art.. it really has no meaning...
usually when a teacher brings a student to black belt that should be the time that they recieve the associate mastership ...then when they have multiple black belts they receive full mastership ......then when they bring their blackbelts to associate mastership they get to be senior master then when the student becomes a master then there senior master becomes an elder master or so it should go..
because I find it very hard to believe that a 6th degree master can teach a student up to 5th associate master. I think they should be a senior master first but what do I know....
correct......... this happened at the taiji fan seminar a few years back .. when he first taught it he showd closing the fan with the leg in this one part then the next time he showed it using his hand ...people flipped out ( like it really mattered) ..I have seen this with so many forms..there should be standard set by Sin The...
I would disagree about the "Indochineese approach" as has been suggested. Yes there are many variants on how silat would approach something, but mastery of the strategy and concepts of a particular school of thought are critical to those arts. A given approach could use an open hand or a "phoenix eye" but the tactics must still be mastered. Learning ten or twenty or thirty juros does not teach the art. If you train with someone who has truly accomplished mastery of the art you learn that the juros are just eating from the appetizers of the menu.
Yeah, it translates as "The Way of Shaolin" if you mix languages..
So you have the forms from alot of styles. That doesn't mean you are doing the forms right or you are getting the benefits of the styles.
Shaolin Do history contradicts the history of Kung Fu. Who are you going to believe, highly respected lineages and styles that are widely recognized as real Chinese martial arts or Shaolin Do? Also, do you deny the evidence shown by Willow Sword?
Shaolin is a Buddhist institution, the foundation of Chan. As for Christianity, that has nothing to do with this.
Again, you can have the forms of every style on this planet, but are they done correctly and do you truly master the styles?
What evidence is there that Shaolin Do is truly Shaolin?
What is "American Shaolin"? And actually, alot of people on this board who have seen Shaolin Do say it doesn't look like Chinese martial arts.
What Chinese martial arts have you studied or researched that would make you an expert on Shaolin Kung Fu?
Can anyone tell me what book or video Grand Master Sin is getting the 1st 2nd 3rd & 4th road of the Golden Leopard system from;)
Who knows? Who cares?
If it works for you, great, but don't expect everybody to want to do it.
http://www.plumpub.com/sales/books.htm
It could be any one of these. This is a very small collection of books from China.
I guess the point is, he can't prove he is who he says he is. We can't prove he's not ... so if it works for you, great, otherwise, whatever. :)
Shaolin Do is a mixture of chinese and japanese anyway.. the characters are the same...and it was known as Shaolin Tao first
this does not mean that we are doing the forms wrong either... I know I am doing them right because I have used the techniques in self defense fighting and sparring...( not tag).
whether some one gets the benefits from the style depends on many factors ...too many to discuss here
it contradicts the story of the five elders...big deal..... it does not contradict much else...if it does big deal
the part about christianity was an example that no matter how long or how much something has been practiced preached or taught this does not make it true..you missed that??
this stuff about mastery is absurd
many things prove that it is shaolin all of that have been posted before so I will not get into that again...
what evidnce indicates that shaolin do is not true shaolin??
what do you think american shaolin means?? ...do not be stupid..... just like chinese food there is chinese food then there is american chinese food ...it is still is good food that needs to be eaten
No Sh** it does not look like chinese martial arts ..... because it went through all of asia to get to the united states you know the lineage...duh!!
hell chinese martial arts does not look like chinese martial arts anymore.....
well lets see ...taiji quan ,bagua zhang , xinyi quan, tiger ,black tiger preying mantis ,eagle claw , monkey, five animals, five elders, wing chun hunga , choy lee fut, many southern and northern fist ,weapons etc..
my focus for the last ten years has been on the internal styles alone
I have learned over 100 forms. they all have the same techniques just with different flavor and application and Qi usage
if it works in a combat situation then how can it be wrong????
how it looks may not be pretty compared to what you are use to but believe me it works!!...and that is all that really matters
you make abig deal about sh** that matters to people who are not sifu or sigung or even real practitoners of any art form
No, but I am pretty good in most of them.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by lunghushan
feel free to shoot it down if you wish.
It doesn't matter, since none of the SD "movers and shakers" are reading this board, but check this. Most of the SD'ers out there have said that despite the large body of material to learn, most high-level SD practitioners really have certain specialties. A similar situation was faced by Shanghai's Chin Wu (Jing Wu/Jing Mo) association. Their solution was to get a body of general "building-block forms" from several styles so that the student had a good foundation. Once the basic structure had been established that student would then pursue a particular style. This required several things however- first off, the masters of these styles all taught under the same roof. Second, they co-existed and shared the common purpose to go against the old way of teaching martial arts (closed-door) and create a paradigm shift. This paradigm shift is one of the most signifigant in CMA history.
Some may argue that SD does this in a less formal manner. I would say- formalize it. Teach your beginning students the "core" SD forms. If you have a Drunken Specialist (by Specialist I mean someone who understands the key concepts and theories underlying that form/style,) a Mantis Specialist, a Tiger Specialist, and a Bagua Specialist, then the student could learn the core styles, and then choose to pursue one of the above styles. SD seems to be quite a ubiquitous outfit and therefore, unlike less widespread MA schools, could afford to do this quite easily. For example, the student has learned the "core" and went on to getting a very good grip on Bagua, but was interested in learning Chen Taiji. They could be taught the form, and then referred to another SD instructor who specialized in it.
Again, I know that this is already done to some extent within SD, but seems to hold true mostly just for the Black Belts. How about giving students who don't want to wade through hundreds of forms to get to Black the opportunity to find what they're good at? Just a thought.
??? I don't doubt that the CMA of today look different than Ming Dynasty martial arts, but I think that has to do more with subtle changes and small innovations than with anything. I'm sure if you were able to pluck Wang Lang (if indeed he existed.) out of ancient China and compare his form with that of a good modern Mantis practitioner you wouldn't see too much of a differnce though. I'm sure both would also come away with a new perspective, though. "Hey, I never thought of THAT application!"
If one believes that all Kung Fu comes from Shaolin (as many do to this day still,) I suppose one could say that the many styles that result now are far removed and therefore changed from the original (Shaolin.) I personally think that's backwards. A country as broad and ethnically diverse as China can't help but have hundreds of different Martial Arts, much as Europe had hundreds of different approaches to fencing and Boxing. I think "Shaolin Kung Fu" was/is a product of a mixture of many pre-existing styles of Martial Art (Hong, Lohan, Kan Jia, Animal Styles, etc.) Pieces of Shaolin were taught to the people, who in turn took that knowledge, blended it with other styles that already existed and created new styles. It's the way of the world.
As for the historical stuff, I totally agree with you. It really is irrelevant. For the system I study, there are stories told of a Tang Dynasty Monk who watched gibbons fighting and took the concepts for Mizong from them. Or of the hero Yan Qing from "The Water Margin." Or of a servant boy who was not allowed to formally study his host family's MA, and spied, thereby creating that crazy quilt of a style we call "Lost Track." However, as far as cold, hard history goes, the earliest record of the style points to Sung Tung of Shandong province learning and teaching the art in the 1700's. I stick with that as far as history and lineage go.