Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Yao Sing]

Hey everyone, long time no see! So, what have I missed?

A couple hundred pages similar to the previous couple hundred pages.

Until now.

[bodhi warrior]

Hey everyone, long time no see! So, what have I missed?

Your gonna want to read the deposition first.

[Yao Sing]

As if he doesn't already know.

[tattooedmonk]

I know, right? haha

[Lucas]

I'm a pretty subtle guy.

[One student]

Bill Leonard's comments as posted on the SDA facebook page:

http://goo.gl/EYDo8

What EML says seems to make sense to me. Can anyone, with personal (not hearsay) knowledge dispute what EML says was said back then -- which others have said here (that the circumstances were well known then and just not re-discussed over the years)?

Doesn't change the "book source" discussion, but it appears credible what EML says, confirming what others have suggested here, as to the origination of the lower belt material.

[Yao Sing]

Guess you didn't see my post in the other thread where I posed a few questions nobody cared to answer. And no, what ge wrote doesn't make sense.

Higher ups attempting to salvage their piece of the kingdom is understandable though.

[bodhi warrior]

What EML says seems to make sense to me. Can anyone, with personal (not hearsay) knowledge dispute what EML says was said back then -- which others have said here (that the circumstances were well known then and just not re-discussed over the years)?

Doesn't change the "book source" discussion, but it appears credible what EML says, confirming what others have suggested here, as to the origination of the lower belt material.

I have a DVD of Sin The' talking about the history of some of our forms. He states that our short forms come from Jie Shou Fu who learned them from a master he dueled to a draw. In his deposition he states he created them from scratch. So Sin either lied to bill or he lied in the book and on the DVD.

[RJ797]

I have a DVD of Sin The' talking about the history of some of our forms. He states that our short forms come from Jie Shou Fu who learned them from a master he dueled to a draw. In his deposition he states he created them from scratch. So Sin either lied to bill or he lied in the book and on the DVD.

and that sums it all up perfectly.

[bodhi warrior]

Doc fai wong's 5 animal book was published in 1988. In a seminar Bill Leonard stated he was taught it in 1990. Same exact form.
Cai longyun published books on hua quan covering 4 roads and a 2 man set. But i think his hua system covers 12 roads. Sin teaches 4 roads and a two man set.
I think it's a safe bet Sin plagerized these forms from the books.

[One student]

Bill Leonard's comments as posted on the SDA facebook page:

http://goo.gl/EYDo8

The letter is also posted on the SDA website, and the Sin The Lexington school website, for anyone to see and read.

And for what its worth, from GMT's own website:

"Shaolin Do is a massive collection of styles which descended from the Shaolin Temple system in China, passed down from master to student and from generation to generation." (Emphasis added by me)

Don't think that is inconsistent with what has been said, or what EML said, as to each form not having been claimed to be an exact Temple form -- "descended from" is not "the same as" or "the originals taught at".

For what its worth.

[One student]

I have a DVD of Sin The' talking about the history of some of our forms. He states that our short forms come from Jie Shou Fu who learned them from a master he dueled to a draw. In his deposition he states he created them from scratch. So Sin either lied to bill or he lied in the book and on the DVD.

The words out of his mouth are important -- both ways. I'd like to know the exact words on the DVD you refer to. Saying that forms "come from" someone or something, is not necessarily inconsistent with creating them. Stances, strikes, hand positions, blocks, all have to "come from" something, and creating them "from" something else is still creating them. I have drills and techniques that I "created," and all "come from" something else I learned. It may be splitting hairs, either way.

Unless of course he said (I don't know, I don't have his DVD's) "the 1-30 short forms from SD white to green belt are the exact ones, with no changes, that were those taught by JSF." Yes, that would be hard to reconcile with "I created them."

And there will be those who will find fault in whatever he says, and others who will defend whatever he says. Don't see that changing any time soon.

[themeecer]

What EML says seems to make sense to me. Can anyone, with personal (not hearsay) knowledge dispute what EML says was said back then -- which others have said here (that the circumstances were well known then and just not re-discussed over the years)?

Doesn't change the "book source" discussion, but it appears credible what EML says, confirming what others have suggested here, as to the origination of the lower belt material.

Instead of disputing it I will back it up. I have learned a few of the original 'short katas.' I was told back then that they were originally taught those and then GM Sin switched over to the current 30 short kata. These older short katas were much longer .. about the length of shorter long katas. I didn't know the reasons the new ones were added, but it makes sense now.

As I stated on our facebook page, I am glad we have an official word on this 'controversy.' I can go back to my training and let you all verbally duke it out.

By the way .. this was my yearly mandatory post in this monstrosity of a thread.

[shen ku]

meecer you have to do more then one or how will us people just a little to the west of you ever keep in touch,, cause you know we always forget about emailing....

[Leto]

Instead of disputing it I will back it up. I have learned a few of the original 'short katas.' I was told back then that they were originally taught those and then GM Sin switched over to the current 30 short kata. These older short katas were much longer .. about the length of shorter long katas. I didn't know the reasons the new ones were added, but it makes sense now.

As I stated on our facebook page, I am glad we have an official word on this 'controversy.' I can go back to my training and let you all verbally duke it out.

By the way .. this was my yearly mandatory post in this monstrosity of a thread.

The point is, if it was well known to all the senior students, why isn't that information taught to all students? Aren't they proud of how Sin The had created this wonderful system of forms for introducing people to shaolin martial arts? Why is all we ever hear about Ie Chang Ming and Su Kong Tai Jin, and the ancient shaolin monks? We don't even get told about the other Bandung teachers who supposedly contributed to the system, we had to find out about it in a round about way from brother Hiang's system and the internet. If everyone who studied back in the sixites and the people who went on the trip to Bandung all knew all this stuff, why isn't it common knowledge for all students? Why is there so much resistance and double talk? Why is the "history" section of the CSC manual full of legends and tall tales about Sin The and his lineage, instead of useful facts about the style's origin? Is it because the facts will show that it is impossible for Sin The to have learned much of the material he has taught (and continues to teach) from his teachers in Bandung? Would it sound so bad if they said that such and such a form was learned over a couple weeks while Sin The visited his family in Bandung one year? Or if he took a trip to Taiwan or Hong Kong and learned something new from an instructor there, and came back to teach it to his students? Of course, I don't know if that happened. But it sounds better than reading a book or watching a video, piecing together a form from the pictures and descriptions, and then teaching it to his students. Doesn't that possibility bother any of the long time students?
Keep training, of course. But honesty and personal intergrity has to mean something, especially in the teacher/student relationship. If that relationship is ruined, how can you continue to give obeisance to the "master" who won't tell the truth even about his own martial arts?