Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Syn7]

I think he might. I suspect an HTML excuse. But I think he has something he thinks is worth it. Doubt it will explain HSCLF fundamentals in a non related "Shaolin" form. Notice how he's mouthy then disappears when pushed to answer one simple question. From now on I'm not going to give him anything to focus on but that question. He can keep sidestepping, but it just gets more and more obvious.

Even if this form does exist from a more direct Shaolin lineage, he still can't explain why he knows Lau Buns unique version. I've seen the real and I've seen Jakes. CLEARLY Jakes has HSCLF elements, as poor as it is. ANd he learned his from the same lineage. So unless TTM can show a version of 5 animals that he learned from Sin The's line without HSCLF principles, he has no room to work with.

[sean_stonehart]

I agree with all of these but with a few exceptions. They are taichi64, classical pakua, hsing ie, but I can see how they may have been learned from books.
I know the chain whip as Hiang teaches looked pretty legit having seen him perform it.

What do you mean about exceptions? Curious...

[RJ797]

Sean's list is not correct. Not because he lists forms that Sin The might have actually learned from Ie Chang Ming. Because he only lists a small percentage.

Everything on Sean's list obviously came from books and videos as well as many more.

The material from white belt to 2nd black (with the exception of Tai Chi and Pa Kua) is most likely things Sin The acquired in Indonesia.

Everything after that is either from books or material Sin The hadn't practiced for years and reconstructed from notes - so it may as well have been from books or videos.

[Kellen Bassette]

Pick a side or back off.

Can't I just get some popcorn and enjoy the show?

[hskwarrior]

I think he might. I suspect an HTML excuse. But I think he has something he thinks is worth it. Doubt it will explain HSCLF fundamentals in a non related "Shaolin" form. Notice how he's mouthy then disappears when pushed to answer one simple question. From now on I'm not going to give him anything to focus on but that question. He can keep sidestepping, but it just gets more and more obvious.

Even if this form does exist from a more direct Shaolin lineage, he still can't explain why he knows Lau Buns unique version. I've seen the real and I've seen Jakes. CLEARLY Jakes has HSCLF elements, as poor as it is. ANd he learned his from the same lineage. So unless TTM can show a version of 5 animals that he learned from Sin The's line without HSCLF principles, he has no room to work with.

yup yup yuppers

[sean_stonehart]

Sean's list is not correct. Not because he lists forms that Sin The might have actually learned from Ie Chang Ming. Because he only lists a small percentage.

Everything on Sean's list obviously came from books and videos as well as many more.

The material from white belt to 2nd black (with the exception of Tai Chi and Pa Kua) is most likely things Sin The acquired in Indonesia.

Everything after that is either from books or material Sin The hadn't practiced for years and reconstructed from notes - so it may as well have been from books or videos.

Thanks I think??

But like I said... these were things I saw directly that are not credited or acknowledged properly. There could be (probably is) more things that I did not see directly or could put a finger on originating elsewhere before being ... pilfered.

[BroncoBB]

Sean's list is not correct. Not because he lists forms that Sin The might have actually learned from Ie Chang Ming. Because he only lists a small percentage.

Everything on Sean's list obviously came from books and videos as well as many more.

The material from white belt to 2nd black (with the exception of Tai Chi and Pa Kua) is most likely things Sin The acquired in Indonesia.

Everything after that is either from books or material Sin The hadn't practiced for years and reconstructed from notes - so it may as well have been from books or videos.

So RJ I've read Hiang's curriculum list and it has a number of things on it that have not been taught in the SD system below 2nd degree or anywhere else. Would you say this is because Hiang is working the same scam or did he get more material from Ie Chang Ming? This is another big yet silent debate in the SD system is that Hiang is somehow illegitimate. Yet I have heard arguments that Hiang teaches the full Tai Peng system becuase he learned it from a contemporary of Ie Chan Ming's and that the reason SKT doesn't teach it is that he doesn't know it and Hiang obviously won't teach it to him. I'm wondering if this is true of some of Hiang's other material or if he's just reading different books than SKT?

As far as Stone's list I can't believe I left out Tiger/Crane. Just finished reviewing that one. I did look at Rydberg's (Or Mace or whatever he calls himself these days) form and I was rather unimpressed. I'm not God's gift to forms but the lack of focused energy and rooting were obvious. God help his joints the way he extends everything. It started me thinking though. I've looked at that form online a lot and it resembles the Hung Gar form in a few minor areas only. It might be that it's so butchered I can't pick out the similarities and of course SD will say it's the older, original, and far better version of the form. Anyones thought as to whether it's just been chopped up pretty bad but the same form, if it's not even the tiger/crane form, or if it's been fragmented and taught so many different ways that what we have left is an evolved (or devolved) SD original.

In a way I guess it's a rather morbid curiosity for me to find just how fake is this thing I've invested 15 years into?

By the way if it interests any of you SD has started teaching pressure point theory within the past few years. Funny thing is it was virtually never talked about when I started and I was nearly a third degree before it was even mentioned. The theory they are teaching looks suspiciously like the stuff Dillman teaches and appears to miss a few philosophical points that are normally parts of chinese pressure point work. It is decidedly Japanese in flavor. I've mentioned my original background in Okinawan karate and I've had some exposure to Dillman. If they start teaching "knock outs" I'll know for sure.

[Syn7]

Can't I just get some popcorn and enjoy the show?

HellzJyeah!

And smack around the rest of the spectators when they try to speak and whine about how they have already made concessions!




So anyways. For those too stupid to concede the obvious.... If SD's 5 Animals is indeed from another line, how did HSCLF(not CLF) elements make it into Sin Thes version? Anyone???

[bodhi warrior]

What do you mean about exceptions? Curious...

I just meant that I agree all those forms you listed were definetly learned from a media source except maybe tc64, classical pakua, hsing ie. But I do think its possible he got those 3 from books, I'm just not sure.

[bodhi warrior]

[QUOTE=BroncoBB;1202753]So RJ I've read Hiang's curriculum list and it has a number of things on it that have not been taught in the SD system below 2nd degree or anywhere else. Would you say this is because Hiang is working the same scam or did he get more material from Ie Chang Ming? This is another big yet silent debate in the SD system is that Hiang is somehow illegitimate. Yet I have heard arguments that Hiang teaches the full Tai Peng system becuase he learned it from a contemporary of Ie Chan Ming's and that the reason SKT doesn't teach it is that he doesn't know it and Hiang obviously won't teach it to him. I'm wondering if this is true of some of Hiang's other material or if he's just reading different books than SKT?

As far as Stone's list I can't believe I left out Tiger/Crane. Just finished reviewing that one. I did look at Rydberg's (Or Mace or whatever he calls himself these days) form and I was rather unimpressed. I'm not God's gift to forms but the lack of focused energy and rooting were obvious. God help his joints the way he extends everything. It started me thinking though. I've looked at that form online a lot and it resembles the Hung Gar form in a few minor areas only. It might be that it's so butchered I can't pick out the similarities and of course SD will say it's the older, original, and far better version of the form. Anyones thought as to whether it's just been chopped up pretty bad but the same form, if it's not even the tiger/crane form, or if it's been fragmented and taught so many different ways that what we have left is an evolved (or devolved) SD original.

In a way I guess it's a rather morbid curiosity for me to find just how fake is this thing I've invested 15 years into?

I know the birds and cranes at brown belt come from Hiang. Sin had ran out of material and wanted to add to the curriculum. Hiang was still going back to Indonesia to study with his teachers.

[sean_stonehart]

I just meant that I agree all those forms you listed were definetly learned from a media source except maybe tc64, classical pakua, hsing ie. But I do think its possible he got those 3 from books, I'm just not sure.

Watch the transitions, it'll be pretty obvious when you compare to somebody like William CC Chen who studied with CMC. Watch somebody do JRQ bagua & look at "his notes" from bagua. I'll send you a copy of the JRQ ebook if you want. Watch xingyi.

If he learned that stuff from a person... I gotta wonder.

[kwaichang]

The pressure point is not Japanese or Okinawan, also The Hung Gar form was taught to me much different than it is now , I may just record that and show how I was taught it , there are alot of differences I think too many to list. But I will try later this PM. I like that form. KC

[hskwarrior]

the pressure point is not japanese or okinawan, also the hung gar form was taught to me much different than it is now , i may just record that and show how i was taught it , there are alot of differences i think too many to list. But i will try later this pm. I like that form. Kc

who taught you hung gar?

[kwaichang]

I originally learned it in 75 from my 1st teacher Sifu R beene, I learned it again in 93 in SD in Tx and then another way in Tn and another in Lex. KC

[kwaichang]

I dont feel SD is a waste . I think there are good things in SD. I also feel there is Legitimate CMA in SD. It may not be all done according to CMA principle but who knows how it has been changed over time. I do know when I 1st learned the He Hu Duet, it was taught differently with different emphasis on certain points and movements. So i dont think anyones 1 year or 40 years is truly wasted , what is sad is how much was learned from a human and howmuch otherwise then passed on as Original. KC