Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[sean_stonehart]

Have you seen the Hua forms you speak of? Curious as to the similarities and when the books were issued etc. How does that correlate to the teaching of the Hua's in SD? KC

They're all on Youtube. Look up AirforceAllie or Marilyn Cooper's channel. Cooper was a student of Peter Kwok & Allie is a grandstudent of Kwok. As I understand it, Kwok learned Hua Quan from the Cai Longyan lineage in China & taught it here in the NJ area.

[Judge Pen]

Probably because that's how Cai Longyun presented them. He wrote the book on the 4 roads of hua and 2 two man sets. There are 13 sets in hua quan if I'm not mistaken. We know 6. The exact six published by Cai longyun.

That's pretty ****ing evidence IMO.

[kwaichang]

Yep that is why I wanted to know the dates of release . It may just be a coincidence that the #'s of forms etc are the same. I would have to see one to know could some one post one here? Not enough to convict ? LOL If the Glove dont fit U must aquit. KC

[kwaichang]

http://youtu.be/PjmFosOfZx0
Almost Verbatim So atleast the Huas in SD are real CMA, The question is how were they learned? and When KC

[kwaichang]

http://youtu.be/Ncc1okh4qeQ
No comment on skill level just sequence. 2nd road/book
http://youtu.be/U1E2UYLTGGw Other 2nd Rd .
http://youtu.be/avn8dVzZ_b8 Hua 3.
http://youtu.be/P01hLf8SBS8 HUa 4 KC

[MasterKiller]

Yep that is why I wanted to know the dates of release . It may just be a coincidence that the #'s of forms etc are the same. I would have to see one to know could some one post one here? Not enough to convict ? LOL If the Glove dont fit U must aquit. KC

[kwaichang]

Twin Tiger Sword. http://youtu.be/MsXaakFRTLY










http://youtu.be/BD0Nd5WAejc Spear
I think we found the Origin of the Huas ???? KC

[sean_stonehart]

Yep that is why I wanted to know the dates of release . It may just be a coincidence that the #'s of forms etc are the same. I would have to see one to know could some one post one here? Not enough to convict ? LOL If the Glove dont fit U must aquit. KC

IIRC CYL's book was published in China in the 50's or 60's. Hua Quan is his family's style among with the others he learned separately.

[Iron Palm]

Yep that is why I wanted to know the dates of release . It may just be a coincidence that the #'s of forms etc are the same. I would have to see one to know could some one post one here? Not enough to convict ? LOL If the Glove dont fit U must aquit. KC

You can find pdf's of the books online and compare for yourself. Can't speak for whatever you might have learned, but I can say they are move for move identical to what the soards taught (or at least "roads" 1-4 are, as for some reason the 2 man set and the "modern" form were forbidden in the west).


I saw the double straight sword form you posted taught by Sharon Soard, and the spear form looks like it was broken into several forms and taught that way.

The party line in the Soard schools is that SD material is so original and so authentic that as soon as they teach it people videotape them with hidden cameras and immediately try to claim it as their own. I'm not exaggerating when I say they've accused everyone from Kung Fu the tv series to Mas Oyama of stealing their stuff. Of course now it's obvious that it's all preemptive propaganda for the inevitable clash they know will come between themselves and the actual progenitors of what they teach.

[kwaichang]

Hey no Problem , The Huas are real CMA as well as Twin Tigers etc. Whether it was learned from a book and taught or a vid and was taught, I feel certain my forms of the HUas "prior to Injury" are as good or better than most. Its real CMA and does have a lineage while not necessarily Shaolin. I still like them KC

[Empty_Cup]

Hey no Problem , The Huas are real CMA as well as Twin Tigers etc. Whether it was learned from a book and taught or a vid and was taught, I feel certain my forms of the HUas "prior to Injury" are as good or better than most. Its real CMA and does have a lineage while not necessarily Shaolin. I still like them KC

That's not much of a defense for this material in particular. It might feel good to call it "real CMA" but if it is only that way because it was copied from somebody else that's not very good. There's always the point that if it was taken from a book then how much was lost during transmission? Even if the movements are exact, is there something else missing?

[kwaichang]

Not defending but they are CMA and that was a main argument here. also if you learn from a teacher and they dont reveal all the "secrets" to the forms then what is the differense. Its just s easy to copy a vid as well as a real person , except the vid doesnt get mad and kick you out. KC still good stuff. Secrets usually come from Hard work anyway.

[Judge Pen]

I understand both sides of this issue. I loved the Hua material when I learned it, and my teacher really went into a lot of detail on the instruction and application. Essentially, I focused on the 4 roads of hua, almost exclusively, for over 4 years. So I feel better about applying this material than I do some other stuff that was taught but not in a great deal of detail. Having said that, you can't ignore the "lost in translation" argument if that material was pilfered and taught from a book. Even if a thoughtful and talented instructor is able to fill in the blanks based upon his own independent research and training to make this material very relevant and applicable (which is how I felt about my instruction) then the material is now different than traditional hua. Even if it has substantially the same form and flavor, it is now unique. Not bad, but different.

[kungfujunky]

You can find pdf's of the books online and compare for yourself. Can't speak for whatever you might have learned, but I can say they are move for move identical to what the soards taught (or at least "roads" 1-4 are, as for some reason the 2 man set and the "modern" form were forbidden in the west).


I saw the double straight sword form you posted taught by Sharon Soard, and the spear form looks like it was broken into several forms and taught that way.

The party line in the Soard schools is that SD material is so original and so authentic that as soon as they teach it people videotape them with hidden cameras and immediately try to claim it as their own. I'm not exaggerating when I say they've accused everyone from Kung Fu the tv series to Mas Oyama of stealing their stuff. Of course now it's obvious that it's all preemptive propaganda for the inevitable clash they know will come between themselves and the actual progenitors of what they teach.

Thats because the Soards did not know them. I have email evidence that they learned the 2 person sets from youtube videos. Whatever the Soards choose to not teach is done so because they do not know the material. period. Any material they learn they also like to attach some fabricated chinese legend or origin story so they can tell it when teaching it.

[Iron Palm]

I understand both sides of this issue. I loved the Hua material when I learned it, and my teacher really went into a lot of detail on the instruction and application. Essentially, I focused on the 4 roads of hua, almost exclusively, for over 4 years. So I feel better about applying this material than I do some other stuff that was taught but not in a great deal of detail. Having said that, you can't ignore the "lost in translation" argument if that material was pilfered and taught from a book. Even if a thoughtful and talented instructor is able to fill in the blanks based upon his own independent research and training to make this material very relevant and applicable (which is how I felt about my instruction) then the material is now different than traditional hua. Even if it has substantially the same form and flavor, it is now unique. Not bad, but different.

I read an interesting Bagua article a while ago; it's main takeaway was that if a system doesn't have a concise series of steps which build on each other to create a very specific skill set, then it is an incomplete system.

Having trained in a different style for a while now, which feels to me to be complete, or at least vastly more complete than SD, I liken the whole notion to capital theory.

If you imagine whatever art you're trying to learn is it's own economy, then the exercises, drills, training sequences, forms, etc. form a kind of knowledge capital stock that has accumulated over time. What you're attempting to build is the iphone of martial arts: a high technology version of the system (you) which takes advantage of, and would not be possible without, all the earlier inputs.

A salient example would be the notion of a technique having been "fight-tested". Rather than sit in your basement trying to imagine all the different attacks someone might use on you, hypothesizing good responses, and then going out and testing each one, that time can instead be spent training movements which have already had at least some useless aspects weeded out.

Pieces of SD may in fact be "real CMA", but in my opinion just grabbing a handful of forms here and there is like trying to build an iphone by grabbing a handful of materials and tools, and heading to a desert island in hopes that the thing will assemble itself if you just stare hard enough at it. If the rest of the infrastructure isn't there, it's extremely unlikely to happen. You might get something, but it probably won't be a very refined product since you didn't have decades of combined wisdom capital telling you what to avoid and what to emphasize from the start.