Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Baqualin]

As a lawyer, JP, your objective is to prove a point of view, regardless of the facts. I'd like to envision you as a young Atticus Finch, ready to put the hairy-monk b!tch-slap on the criminal element.

Hey Mas,
Considering your background in Indonesian Martial Arts, we should be able to get into some very interesting conversations regarding the history and development of CMA as related to SD or Shaolin in general. I'm curious to hear what you've seen and learned in your studies.
BQ

[DPL]

You know, repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different response is a definition for insanity. However, when talking to the mentally challenged, you can simply exhaust yourself. So I'll politely ask people to just go through the thread before I go insane or get just bored.

Good decision. Let them seek out your truth-thumping in past posts. That's exactly what I was trying to get you to do.

[oasis]

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/foru...ad.php?t=48751

pay attention to after the 55 second mark. enjoy

[Mas Judt]

There was a great 'scholarly' article written in JAMA some years back that detailed eitimology of MA terms in the 'Nusantra' (Indonesia/Malaysia) - it also classified the types of CMA found.

Like anywhere there is really good stuff and really bad stuff in Indonesia. There is also:

CMA that kept to itself within the Chinese community

CMA that added JMA influence (because the teachers did not teach openly)

CMA that added IMA influence (Rare)

CMA that got absorbed directly as a 'new' style of Silat (such as Nanquan turning into Mustika Kwitang.)

Unfortunately, it is very hard to offer up an analysis of SD, as so much of it is 'borrowed' material, much of it contradictory, and taught incomplete (much like Modern wushu in some regards - that is NOT a slam.)

It was not uncommon for certain schools both in China and Indonesia to become 'forms factories' in order to string along students. However, the disparate nature of all the content is very unusual - at least according to my research/experience.

It would be very interesting if we could contact related schools in Indonesia.

more later.

[Baqualin]

There was a great 'scholarly' article written in JAMA some years back that detailed eitimology of MA terms in the 'Nusantra' (Indonesia/Malaysia) - it also classified the types of CMA found.

Like anywhere there is really good stuff and really bad stuff in Indonesia. There is also:

CMA that kept to itself within the Chinese community

CMA that added JMA influence (because the teachers did not teach openly)

CMA that added IMA influence (Rare)

CMA that got absorbed directly as a 'new' style of Silat (such as Nanquan turning into Mustika Kwitang.)

Unfortunately, it is very hard to offer up an analysis of SD, as so much of it is 'borrowed' material, much of it contradictory, and taught incomplete (much like Modern wushu in some regards - that is NOT a slam.)

Not taken that way

It was not uncommon for certain schools both in China and Indonesia to become 'forms factories' in order to string along students. However, the disparate nature of all the content is very unusual - at least according to my research/experience.

I would like to see more on this.....you used the word was?

It would be very interesting if we could contact related schools in Indonesia.

Yes it would.....there's mention in some of the Indo. publications of one of GMIe's colleagues who was teaching Tiger Crane to a Silat school (info sharing between a group of schools) I have more info on this if I can find what I did with it.

more later.

sdgkloinponeb

[Mas Judt]

You are correct, it still is.

Forms training is not the real 'kung fu.' Had this conversation with a Modern Wushu guy once, it drove him nuts.

[Judge Pen]

You are correct, it still is.

Forms training is not the real 'kung fu.' Had this conversation with a Modern Wushu guy once, it drove him nuts.

I understand its a component of kung fu training, but not the "end all be-all" of kung fu training. But your statement seems to imply that its not even a component of "real kung fu". Care to elaborate?

[SDJerry]

You are correct, it still is.

Forms training is not the real 'kung fu.' Had this conversation with a Modern Wushu guy once, it drove him nuts.

Forms are nothing more than a grouping of different hands. Its no different than a boxer stringing together jabs, hooks, and uppercuts with proper footwork. Practicing the form alone would not make you a boxer however all the techniques you need to become one are in there. So IMO forms training is an important PART of kung fu training but not kung fu training as a whole.

[MasterKiller]

Forms are nothing more than a grouping of different hands. Its no different than a boxer stringing together jabs, hooks, and uppercuts with proper footwork. Practicing the form alone would not make you a boxer however all the techniques you need to become one are in there. So IMO forms training is an important PART of kung fu training but not kung fu training as a whole.

The boxing-to-kung fu analogy is not apples to apples.

A lot of kung fu forms contain moves that have absolutely no fighting application at all. Some moves are just for balance training, some are for exercise, and some are symbolic. Besides some real applications are so hidden that the form does not resemble the application at all.

When a boxer shadowboxes, all his techniques are 100% about fighting and look exactly like their application.

[BM2]

Didn't Bruce Lee say it best when he compared just doing forms to practicing swimming while on land?
And wasn't he far ahead of everyone else with MMA? I read (sorry,don't recall the actor's name) an '80s IKF article with his nemesis in Enter The Dragon,they both wanted to have grappling in the final fight scene but it was impossible when the actor had to wear that claw. Too bad that Jean Machado wasn't around back then.

[SDJerry]

The boxing-to-kung fu analogy is not apples to apples.

A lot of kung fu forms contain moves that have absolutely no fighting application at all. Some moves are just for balance training, some are for exercise, and some are symbolic. Besides some real applications are so hidden that the form does not resemble the application at all.

When a boxer shadowboxes, all his techniques are 100% about fighting and look exactly like their application.

If you look at the basic concept, they're both apples. Every part of a form has purpose or it would not be in there. The purpose might be to develop leg strength or balance but each is a requirement to be a good martial artist. I could have expanded upon my analogy to include different aspects but I didnt' feel it was necessary to get the point across.

A boxer trains the jab, it trains the hook, etc.... just like we should train different hands 'outside of the forms'. You have the form, you see the technique, now drill it outside the form so you can use it against a restiting opponent. Agree?

[tattooedmonk]

If you look at the basic concept, they're both apples. Every part of a form has purpose or it would not be in there. The purpose might be to develop leg strength or balance but each is a requirement to be a good martial artist. I could have expanded upon my analogy to include different aspects but I didnt' feel it was necessary to get the point across.

A boxer trains the jab, it trains the hook, etc.... just like we should train different hands 'outside of the forms'. You have the form, you see the technique, now drill it outside the form so you can use it against a restiting opponent. Agree?

I agree . To expand on what you were saying , a boxer, when shadow boxing, bobs, weaves, does different footwork, etc. more than just punch. It ALL is meant to be transfered to fighting.

They are both apples , just different kinds of apples.

I would say that this is one of the problems with traditional arts, the applications and the way that the information is transfered is more or less lost. I personally believe that the forms should not be taught until last.( in some cases not at all).

All of the basics , conditioning, techniques, drills , applications , etc. should be taught first . The forms are just catalogs of the material . I believe that they are useful,just misunderstood.If the forms were taught /used the way they were meant to be, we would not be having this conversation.



Most students ( even teachers)who practice/teach forms do not know how to break them down and distinguish between what is used for application, conditioning, symbolism, etc, just like MK said. But this does not mean that they are not valuable or important to the training.

[ricardocameron]

On History channels's Human Weapon:Kung Fu episode...The Police kungfu demonstrated a front snap kick we SD'ers use. I loved the power-demo- breakdown. 1000 lbs. of force? Nice.

Also, halfway through the program @ Dengfeng, they show footage of the Chinese Army in the early parts of 20th century performing Block/Punch"Short Forms" very nearly as is done in Shaolin-Do! Nah, couldn't be.... Ah, Viva la Validation!

"Fall down seven times, Get up eight!"

[NJM]

On History channels's Human Weapon:Kung Fu episode...The Police kungfu demonstrated a front snap kick we SD'ers use. I loved the power-demo- breakdown. 1000 lbs. of force? Nice.

You mean you guys do toe-kicks to the face too? Wow, I guess Wushu isn't the only style that breaks KF fundamentals.

[Shaolin Wookie]

You mean you guys do toe-kicks to the face too? Wow, I guess Wushu isn't the only style that breaks KF fundamentals.

No, we don't do toe-kicks to the face. GM The' once said--"It's a toe-kick. Duh! You kick the toes with a toe-kick." We only do butterfly twists to the face while wielding a judo katana.