Quote:
Originally posted by cerebus
Anton has stated very simply, exactly what most people who have any problem with SD have spent many more words trying to explain to the SDers on this board. Shaolin-Do is not traditional CMA. It IS Shaolin-Do (not, however, Shaolin Chuan or Chung Kuo Wu Shu [Chinese MA]). It might be effective, and it has certainly done much good for many people but it's frustrating that it is represented as something which it isn't. The SDers on this board have shown that, for them, SD is good enough to stand on it's own regardless of it's background or "history" it's just to bad that Sin The doesn't seem to know they feel this way (though by this point it's a bit late for him to come clean with the truth as it would be a tremendous loss of face to admit that maybe the background was "embellished" a bit here & there). T.
I've been open-minded to the arguments and can concede much of what you say. SD is SD. It's lineage is embellished as are other areas of the art. It is effective. It's more traditional than you think. It is not pure shaolin, but it has roots there like many MA.