Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Tensei85]

Awesome post! Shaolin Wookie.

Other than Shaolin Wookie I've heard the negative aspects of Shaolin Do, but I'm wondering about the positives for each member in other words what kept you guys going so long? I think thats an important factor as well. thanks

[OldandUsed]

Tensei85...

I stayed in SD for quite a while because I enjoyed the workout, the contact sparring, the people for the most part and the diversity of material. I had experience in other arts, and have continued that study since leaving SD, and compared to some of them the SD people did not do bad. In fact, since first starting SD in 1970, I have been pleasantly surprised at how many other systems/schools/players I have encountered that did not do as well as the SD. Of course, that is just my experience and others may have other experiences. I do not regret a single minute of my time in SD, but recognize a philosophical difference that caused me to leave.

[godzillakungfu]

It was fun. Plain and simple. As the internet grew, I realized I wasn't doing Shaolin.

My school sparred hard, which is what I wanted. I made good friends which, was a bonus. We worked on SD and techniques, which is what I wanted. I travelled, which I hate but, ended up getting me out of my comfort zone. I actually made it to Kentucky once. I'm from the west coast.


Great Post Wookie.

[yeti]

Awesome post! Shaolin Wookie.

Other than Shaolin Wookie I've heard the negative aspects of Shaolin Do, but I'm wondering about the positives for each member in other words what kept you guys going so long? I think thats an important factor as well. thanks

Wookie did a great job with his FAIR approach to some of the drawbacks of SD, which is nice because often you just hear bashing.

I agree with the others, I stuck with it for a long time because it was fun. I made a lot of good friends, many of whom I still train with or hang out with, like Stoneheart. The exercise is very good if you put in some effort, and I really enjoyed that. On the other hand, the history is dubious and seems to be influenced in some part by marketing, while some aspects are left out, which have been covered earlier in this thread. And it sometimes seems like there are a lot of extra expenses, like festivals and conditioning classes. While most of them aren't necessary for advancement, I really feel like a school should be making the vast majority off members' tuition payments and not by selling them all sorts of extra forms, training classes, DVDs, etc. All of these things should be part of the benefit of being a member of that school, in my opinion. Though I imagine running a martial arts school would be tough and I've never done so myself, so I try to keep this in mind when I see emails going out about this festival, this special training program, this DVD, all at extra cost to the student. At least here in Atlanta, it seems like this type of thing has really gotten out of hand over the last 5-8 years; a decade ago there were 4 festival classes a year that were extra cost, maybe 1-2 of the brown belt trainings. I'm going to try to stem the flow of griping there.

[kwaichang]

No offense to wookie but he sounds like most of the grad students I have talked to and read from. If history or research cant prove it it doesnt exist or isnt a "fact". I appreciate that approach but realise from experience in a work field that is Science based that all things cant be proven. I was reading on another thread that a Fukien Shaolin Monastery was "just " discovered thus there are flaws in all research. I too am not trying to start something but I have compared HUa forms with other "styles of Hua" and note many similarities and as well as the other things taught in SD and other systems as well. Even what the Monks teach and do does not look like the old Shaolin from what I have read. Also Wookies cites of the History of SD is nothing of what I have learned as the History. I have spoken to GMT regarding this as well and am convinced that what he says and cites is verifiable. I think others have warped what was originally said this happens often. Humphrey bogart did not say " Play it again Sam" this is just an example. Why do all people want others to agree and admit they are wrong? Usually it is due to an under lying ego. BTW I 1st trained in SD in 1981 and the history taught by that teacher is the same as now but now the dates and souirces are more verifiiable. Thanks to research KC

When I started it was 20.00 per month when I moved from where I trained it was 45.00 per month, many want to make a mint teaching I would charge 45for the SD classes and 60 for internal and external togethor. If I teach an extra form it is 30.00 and that is for paint or a floor or aircond.

[Leto]

Also Wookies cites of the History of SD is nothing of what I have learned as the History. I have spoken to GMT regarding this as well and am convinced that what he says and cites is verifiable. I think others have warped what was originally said this happens often. Humphrey bogart did not say " Play it again Sam" this is just an example. Why do all people want others to agree and admit they are wrong? Usually it is due to an under lying ego. BTW I 1st trained in SD in 1981 and the history taught by that teacher is the same as now but now the dates and souirces are more verifiiable. Thanks to research KC

The problem I had with the "history", is that it does not give detailed information on the origins of any of the forms. There is no mention of where each form came from, who taught it to who, how old it is, etc. All we get is, GMT was taught everything he knows by Ie Chang Ming, and he was taught everything he knew by SKTJ, who learned every style of martial arts that existed at the time (which were all being taught in the fukien shaolin temple, including the internal arts). Does anyone really believe that is true? Really?

If this is "warped", please tell us the truth! This is essentially what everyone is told as the only lineage and history of the style. Some of you guys act like this isn't the complete story, and there is some information you have which convinces you that everything is kosher, but you never make an attempt to correct it. Why is this some big secret? Did you swear a blood oath (or equivalent) to GMT never to reveal the true origins of his art? And don't say "It's no secret, the answers are right in front of your face", or something similar. The truth has been obscured, or at least omitted, and we all know it.

Why isn't it presented, up front, which forms were created by GMT as training aids (and when), which were created by ICM, which were inherited from different sources, etc.?

Can someone of the early generation of students please tell us the real story, which GMT shared with you, that has convinced you?

If Hiang The's story is true, about the group of teachers in Indonesia, why doesn't SD and GMT tell us that, and the specifics about who taught which forms, and the lineages of those other teachers? Surely they weren't all students of the hairy monk Su Kong?
Why can't anyone reveal where and when GMT learned Chen Man Ching's 37 posture form, Jiang Rong Qiao's classical bagua, and all the other internal forms? Is it a coincidence that both those forms (and I'm sure others) were in published form in the 1960's and 70's?

These are the kinds of questions and details that I would like to know (not that it matters what I would like).

If there is not some dubious reason to cover up all this information, why does it not flow freely from senior masters down to the newer generations? Why does it have to be hidden from the public? Is there something so precious and sacred that only the oldest and most loyal disciples get to know what they're actually learning and where it came from? If the methods are authentic and traditional, what harm can come of telling everyone the truth?

I have a feeling most people don't really know, and will never know, the answers to most of these questions (even the longest-time students). In practice, people didn't and don't ask questions like this, teacher teaches and you follow without question. You learn and perform what he tells you to, and later on if he offers some tidbit about its history, you accept it and move on, whether it makes sense or not. Too busy training to bother with such things, and in a way I agree with this sentiment. But after a while, there has to be a point where you say "wait a minute, does any of this make sense? why would he not tell me the truth?"

maybe it's like Obi Wan Kenobi said...
Luke: "But you told me Vader betrayed and murdered my father!"
Obi Wan: "What I told you was true...from a certain point of view"
"from a certain point of view?!" , says an incredulous Luke


From a certain point of view...the true shaolin is in your heart. Everything you practice is "shaolin" if your heart is there, right? GMT has the heart of shaolin, so whatever he learned and wherever it came from, if you practice with the right mindset, it is "the true and authentic shaolin". So what he told us is true, from a certain point of view... Am I on the right track?

[kwaichang]

First of all SKDJ was at the Fukien Temple was it the one we know of or one like the one that was just discovered to exist ? Who knows? The forms did not all come from the same area or temple this is explained in the history section of one of the sites . There was Omei Kwang Tung Henan Fujien Etc. SKDJ had traveled to these and learned there. Remember although he was Hairy he was supposed to be very gifted in other ways. Like wise ICM was not a renegade monk he left to study with SKDJ............ You can read the rest. But the point is much ofthe history has been skewed by some of the Masters of SD to fit their ego laden personalities and eventually casting doubt on the art as a whole. From the uniform to the "harry guy " etc . KC

[yeti]

The problem I had with the "history", is that it does not give detailed information on the origins of any of the forms. There is no mention of where each form came from, who taught it to who, how old it is, etc. All we get is, GMT was taught everything he knows by Ie Chang Ming, and he was taught everything he knew by SKTJ, who learned every style of martial arts that existed at the time (which were all being taught in the fukien shaolin temple, including the internal arts). Does anyone really believe that is true? Really?

If this is "warped", please tell us the truth! This is essentially what everyone is told as the only lineage and history of the style. Some of you guys act like this isn't the complete story, and there is some information you have which convinces you that everything is kosher, but you never make an attempt to correct it. Why is this some big secret? Did you swear a blood oath (or equivalent) to GMT never to reveal the true origins of his art? And don't say "It's no secret, the answers are right in front of your face", or something similar. The truth has been obscured, or at least omitted, and we all know it.

Why isn't it presented, up front, which forms were created by GMT as training aids (and when), which were created by ICM, which were inherited from different sources, etc.?

Can someone of the early generation of students please tell us the real story, which GMT shared with you, that has convinced you?

If Hiang The's story is true, about the group of teachers in Indonesia, why doesn't SD and GMT tell us that, and the specifics about who taught which forms, and the lineages of those other teachers? Surely they weren't all students of the hairy monk Su Kong?
Why can't anyone reveal where and when GMT learned Chen Man Ching's 37 posture form, Jiang Rong Qiao's classical bagua, and all the other internal forms? Is it a coincidence that both those forms (and I'm sure others) were in published form in the 1960's and 70's?

These are the kinds of questions and details that I would like to know (not that it matters what I would like).

If there is not some dubious reason to cover up all this information, why does it not flow freely from senior masters down to the newer generations? Why does it have to be hidden from the public? Is there something so precious and sacred that only the oldest and most loyal disciples get to know what they're actually learning and where it came from? If the methods are authentic and traditional, what harm can come of telling everyone the truth?

I have a feeling most people don't really know, and will never know, the answers to most of these questions (even the longest-time students). In practice, people didn't and don't ask questions like this, teacher teaches and you follow without question. You learn and perform what he tells you to, and later on if he offers some tidbit about its history, you accept it and move on, whether it makes sense or not. Too busy training to bother with such things, and in a way I agree with this sentiment. But after a while, there has to be a point where you say "wait a minute, does any of this make sense? why would he not tell me the truth?"

maybe it's like Obi Wan Kenobi said...
Luke: "But you told me Vader betrayed and murdered my father!"
Obi Wan: "What I told you was true...from a certain point of view"
"from a certain point of view?!" , says an incredulous Luke


From a certain point of view...the true shaolin is in your heart. Everything you practice is "shaolin" if your heart is there, right? GMT has the heart of shaolin, so whatever he learned and wherever it came from, if you practice with the right mindset, it is "the true and authentic shaolin". So what he told us is true, from a certain point of view... Am I on the right track?

This. I think there are some coincidences with regard to the inclusion of certain material, like you said, the baqua and tai chi forms. And Master Hsiang's story versus GM The's. What need for separate stories at all? Why not admit to learning from several masters in one school? I used to think "who would fabricate a lineage that includes a HAIRY Grandmaster." And I could chalk up a lot of stories, like the ninja in the rafters and GM Ie killing eleven people to stories that were told to GM The and he's simply passing on as part of the experience. I don't think aspects of the history like that are really even worth worrying about - they could simply have been the marketing GM Ie was using at the time? What gets me is some of the material that is taught today. Where's it coming from? Why is it that much of it becomes available within SD around the same time it appears elsewhere? The bagua form and tai chi forms come to mind, as well as the Shaolin 5 Animal form - Stoneheart knows more about that one, (Sorry there dude.)

[goju]

First of all SKDJ was at the Fukien Temple was it the one we know of or one like the one that was just discovered to exist ? Who knows? The forms did not all come from the same area or temple this is explained in the history section of one of the sites . There was Omei Kwang Tung Henan Fujien Etc. SKDJ had traveled to these and learned there. Remember although he was Hairy he was supposed to be very gifted in other ways. Like wise ICM was not a renegade monk he left to study with SKDJ............ You can read the rest. But the point is much ofthe history has been skewed by some of the Masters of SD to fit their ego laden personalities and eventually casting doubt on the art as a whole. From the uniform to the "harry guy " etc . KC

no matter how you want to slice it the sd forms do not resemble south kung fu in the least simple as that to say they were lost forms just adds to the more over all arrogant attitude of the sschool
if 900 forms werent bad enough lol

[goju]

and my attitude is if you get a funny feeling about something being a lie then it usually is when you have doubt its not worth doing

[yeti]

Alright!! Goju is back! I was getting worried about you there, buddy. I thought maybe you'd calmed down, or finally had enough SD bashing. I still think you should say something nice to Kwaichang. You don't have to like everything about someone to pay them a compliment. You may not like the fact that KC does SD, but you might respect his long dedication to martial arts in general. The fact is man, you need to look at the upside of things. If you focus only on the negative, that's what your life becomes. For example, I have complained a little bit about a few of the things that bug me with SD, having been on the inside long enough to see things progress. However, what I might not have completely communicated is that these complaints are very minor, and are far outweighed by my experience training in SD. So in this example, I might not like all the extraneous (though not necessary for advancement) expenses and the dubious recent history, I can still appreciate the fact that, contrary to your belief, SD turns out some pretty kick-ass martial artists in great physical condition.

[Shaolin Wookie]

First of all SKDJ was at the Fukien Temple was it the one we know of or one like the one that was just discovered to exist ? Who knows? The forms did not all come from the same area or temple this is explained in the history section of one of the sites . There was Omei Kwang Tung Henan Fujien Etc. SKDJ had traveled to these and learned there. Remember although he was Hairy he was supposed to be very gifted in other ways. Like wise ICM was not a renegade monk he left to study with SKDJ............ You can read the rest. But the point is much ofthe history has been skewed by some of the Masters of SD to fit their ego laden personalities and eventually casting doubt on the art as a whole. From the uniform to the "harry guy " etc . KC

Believe it or not, when I was writing last night I thought to myself: "You know....I bet you KC is going to reply to this." And you did, and did so exactly like I figured you would.

The question isn't: "There is evidence of Fukien, so why is our history not legitimate?" The question also isn't: "If you do research on JSTOR or in a university library on Hypertrichosis, you'll find photos and evidence of many cases of hypetrichosis in China, Malaysia, Burma, Eastern Europe, and Russia---so why not Su Kong?"

Many styles claim lineages from Fukien and some even hearken back to the Ten Tigers. That's fine. But I bet you ten bucks their Master could tell you what school he used to study at, who the Master was, who his Master's colleagues were, and who specialized in what. I can do the same with my teacher, his colleagues, his teacher, and their specializations, etc. So can you, I bet. I can take one look at a form from a related SD school and tell what style the master was most proficient in. Why? Variations and stylizations speak volumes about the inheritance of knowledge. Most styles can trace a lineage back a couple of generations, and many of those lineages intersect. They'll sooner or later delve back into a lineage of legend---ending at Shaolin or with Wong Fei Hung or some such person. But in between, there's verifiable history. That history actually has substance.

So, let's say we stick thirty traditional CMA masters into a room and they start talking about lineages. Twenty-nine of them find paralells, recognize other masters' masters or their colleagues, and see some intersection in forms and variations. Maybe some of them don't see intersection, and their lineages are a little more obscure due to geography, etc. This might not mean anything important, but it has substance. All of the sudden, this guy in the corner starts talking about some great great hairy dude with amazing skills, who saved shaolin with his supersensitive hearing and sixth sense training by throwing daggers at ninjas from the rafters.......I don't know why, but I think I just might be a little skeptical about the ninjas and the rafters.

Look. I don't believe the SD history. I love the art. I actually ()enjoy the story of the great great hairy one and the Shaolin Justice League. I find it cool to link SD history to Shaw Bros. movies and the legends of White Eyebrows. But dude....that's legends and oral traditions and them thangs.....that's not history. Does our legendary link with Shaolin, supposedly destroyed by White Eyebrows, suddenly make Kill Bill 2 a respectable historical record of our authenticity?

Shaolin-Do has no sense of itself. GM Sin's certif. owns up to the origins of his school. His brother--who spent a lot of time in Indonesia--admits to multiple masters...as do other students of Shaolin-Do. Wouldn't you like to know who practiced what, where your forms came from, who the masters were, etc.? Wouldn't you like to know a little more about your art besides GM Sin's stories? STories are fine, but a history is something different. Stories pass on meaning, but history passes on substance.

Cheng Man Ching's treatises are the greatest resource on SD's tai chi available. I found them by accident. I didn't know it was our tai chi at the time, but then I saw Waysun Liao's translation of the Tai Chi Classics, with the 37 posture form illustrated in the back.

Sometimes 1 + 1 = 2. And viola....a world of peer-reviewed info about my tai chi was opened up to me. I've met W.C.C. Chen guys and still practice with them (a lineage branch from Cheng Man Ching-reaching back to Yang Cheng-Fu)....I find that special. I find that interesting. I see differences, I see likenesses....but more importantly, that substantial link led to personal meaning, an increase in information, and much better tai chi practice on my part.

When I first saw Luo Jinhua's Bagua, I didn't even recognize it. It was wushufied, and it was fantastic. But then I saw teh movements were my movements, with sections cut in half. And then I got his DVD's, and bam....it was a new way to look at my bagua. Thanks to the net, I can follow changes in Jiang Rong Qiao and Sha Guozheng, and there's this whole world I can relate to---not jsut this isolated system mastered and bottled up in an ancient vessel......a really hairy vessel.

Sean pointed out to me the link between Jeet Kuen and our China hands. I talked to some Ying Jow Pai guys who practice it. They said they got it from Ching Woo. A Ching Woo Association rep schooled me to the probably origins.

The forms look a lot alike...even the weird bows at the beginning and end.

Again, those links can have meaning....but they all rely on substance.

Here's a recap of SD history.

Su Kong was a hairy orphan, Shaolin master, Ninja-killer in the rafters, mountain-dwelling Kung Fu Master.

GM Ie was a renegade Shaolin who killed five Cult. Rev. Azzwipes and studied with the only repository of true Shaolin--forming an unholy alliance of Shaolin mastery that would stand in defiance of all CMA history, and occasionally pose for photos and paintings.....incredibly hairy photos and paintings.

There are three guys. Three guys? Are you kidding me? I can name like 50 Shaolin-Do dudes with skills. I could name 50 more skilled kung-fu guys around Atlanta.....

Three dudes?



Is it any wonder SD catches flack or people accuse it of plagiarism?

[Shaolin Wookie]

I mean that with all the possible respect.

I know it sounds a little azzholish.

I could sketch a history of SD based on stuff I've picked up. It would include some locations, some names, etc. And I bet it wouldn't be that far off the mark. But that's not really my responsibility, and it wouldn't increase actual knowledge of the art, you know?

What I do in the classroom isn't related to the history. Two substances. Would be nice to be able to associate a greater meaning to it, at times. SD forms can be very difficult, and they can get frustrating. When frustration settles in, the historical stuff makes you wonder--"what the hell am I doing here? Maybe I suck because the material is flawed......."

That's why people leave the system. They enjoy it. It's fun. It's challenging. They respect their efforts. They have pride in what they're doing. Then the historical blip, and blamo: and all is meaningless.

Oh well....

[sean_stonehart]

This. I think there are some coincidences with regard to the inclusion of certain material, like you said, the baqua and tai chi forms. And Master Hsiang's story versus GM The's. What need for separate stories at all? Why not admit to learning from several masters in one school? I used to think "who would fabricate a lineage that includes a HAIRY Grandmaster." And I could chalk up a lot of stories, like the ninja in the rafters and GM Ie killing eleven people to stories that were told to GM The and he's simply passing on as part of the experience. I don't think aspects of the history like that are really even worth worrying about - they could simply have been the marketing GM Ie was using at the time? What gets me is some of the material that is taught today. Where's it coming from? Why is it that much of it becomes available within SD around the same time it appears elsewhere? The bagua form and tai chi forms come to mind, as well as the Shaolin 5 Animal form - Stoneheart knows more about that one, (Sorry there dude.)

Yeah it's cool... no worries.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Here's why the system pays off and people stick with it:

Chin-na (IMO, too often stressed for the evasion half, not stressed enough as an attacking/wrestling method)
Sparring Techniques--teach you actual fighting-stance techs/combos. Can be really useful and really...really effective if you get 'em down pat and train them on a bag in various ways. I've cleaned up in sparring with them. If you've been around the kung fu circuit even just a little, you'll start to see trapping hands in the techs, chinna, etc. These become your bread and butter,.
Short Forms-Abstract, weird...but they teach you how to move and keep your hands constantly moving. If you chamber after every strike, it looks exactly like a blend of Tan Tui and Lohan forms.
Ippons (Japanese name, I know, but the same 1-2 step techniques you get in most kung fu schools eventually---you just learn them quicker here).
Techniques (We call 'em "Street-fighting techs") which are basic throws, chin-na, and sweeps done in combinations.

These are the foundation of the entire art. If you get good at all of these techniques, you have a foundation in Longfist, practical sparring, basic combos, locks, mild wrestling, etc.

Over time, you see that your forms are predicated on these techniques. You basically practice 1000 ways to do 10 things.

You get frustrated at first, because you can't draw the link between application and forms. You figure it's abstract. Then you begin to get hints of applications--some are off the wall and unrealistic. Then you refine your applications--and they start looking like your techniques/take downs. All of the sudden, you see the interconnectedness in the theory and what you're practicing--you're always working on the first things you learned (listed above).

Then, you practice body movement to refine your ability to execute the techniques and to get into position.

Next step---onto the next rank or style and begin the process all over again. You constantly challenge your body, mind, will--it's a total learning process. If you practice enough to truly progress, you never regress. If you practice twice a week--well, you're probably doing enough to pass to the next level--but you're not making real progression. More often than not, many SD tiger forms look like crane forms, look like mantis forms. Why? Well, you're probably watching a 2-day a week practitioner. There's nothing wrong with that. That's martial arts--they're getting in shape, learning something new. But the base underneath it all probably isn't that solid. I see a lot of 2-day a week practitioners at other schools. Their "style" is just crisper b/c of the focus on one style.

What's funny is that if you practice daily and, say, don't practice one of your forms for a month, but keep it in your head, you'll find it's that much easier, more crisp, and actually better than the last time you practiced it. Not quite as good as it would be if you practiced every day....but still better.

You evetnually realize that you aren't just learning forms. Your body is learning them and applying everything you learned every day you practice. That body memory makes you better every day. Why not practice 1 form, or 1 style every day? You get good at that 1 form--it makes for a fantastic demo....but are you really learning, or are you refining a form? Hit a bag. I can make up a gajillion combos in as many seconds. When I was doing MMA for a while, I found my punches and kicks were pretty ****ed effective. Some of my combos needed tweaking, but I knew I was on the right track.

I have more material than I know what to do with sometimes, but I bet you my basic crane and tiger is pretty friggin' good. And my White Monkey Steals the Peach is my boxing bread and butter. And I can relate every ippon and every technique to at least 20 different forms. Why? Because I know my forms and my body knows what it's doing.

You don't get that in every art, and it's why I think this is a remarkable system. It's adaptable, rarely rigid, and somewhat open to your interpretation. If you want a cool demo---maybe not the art for you. If you want to grow and learn practical fighting---yeah...but it will definitely depend on who's teaching you and their method of teaching.

That last can be a pitfall if certain individuals add their too-deadly for sparring POV on the material, but more often than not--the system's adaptability gives you room to grow. What's funny is that the too-deadly-for-sparring guys absolutely suck when you spar them. Why? Well, they're not trying to kill you or cripple you, so what do they have left?

You have to train practically. Your knee trap isn't just "smash the sucker--he's crippled". Train it as a check on kicks......stuff like that. You'll pretty soon find you can defend yourself effectively on all fronts and apply it in sparring and in fighting.

That's my POV. Not everyone's....just mine.

I've wasted enough time here over the past 2 days. I'll drop by sometime in September...LOL.