View Poll Results: What to do about the 'Is Shaolin-Do for real?' thread

Voters
57. You may not vote on this poll
  • Unlock IS-Dfr. Merge all S-D threads together so it clears 1000 posts!

    22 38.60%
  • Unlock IS-Dfr. Let all the S-D threads stand independently.

    13 22.81%
  • Keep IS-Dfr locked down. All IS-Dfr posters deserved to be punished.

    5 8.77%
  • Delete them all. Let Yama sort them out.

    17 29.82%
Page 862 of 1335 FirstFirst ... 362762812852860861862863864872912962 ... LastLast
Results 12,916 to 12,930 of 20011

Thread: Is Shaolin-Do for real?

  1. #12916
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Austin, Tx
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by brucereiter View Post
    the problem i have with it is it is said in a way that implies that sin the' has some direct connection to chang san fang ...

    face the facts that tai chi chuan as we know it (yang 64) is not very old. surely not "thousands" of years ...
    As I was taught the history. Chang San Feng's Tai Chi was developed in the 1200's whereas Yang Style was developed in the early 1800's. Since I left SD I have been exposed to many different TCMA styles and none of them look anything like what SD does in any of their systems. Yes it's true that they have a few things like Tiger Crane from Hung Gar, but that is about it. Their Yang Tai Chi is nothing like Yang Tai Chi and neither is their Chen Tai Chi.

  2. #12917
    [QUOTE=sha0lin1;962991]As I was taught the history. Chang San Feng's Tai Chi was developed in the 1200's whereas Yang Style was developed in the early 1800's.

    and the cmc tai chi chuan the is taught in sd was developed in the 1900's.

    chang san feng is a legend. do not confuse legend for history.

    Yang style (楊氏) (founded by Yang Lu-ch'an, 1799-1872) this is as far back as "yang tai chi chuan" can be traced. if you go back further to chen tai chi chuan you will find that it is unlikely that chang san feng even existed let alone developed what we call yang tai chi chuan and more specifically cheng man ching style.



    Quote Originally Posted by sha0lin1 View Post
    Since I left SD I have been exposed to many different TCMA styles and none of them look anything like what SD does in any of their systems. Yes it's true that they have a few things like Tiger Crane from Hung Gar, but that is about it.
    i have not compared the external stuff since i never learned it i cant really say much about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by sha0lin1 View Post
    Their Yang Tai Chi is nothing like Yang Tai Chi and neither is their Chen Tai Chi.
    does the tai chi starting at about 30 seconds into the video look like yang tai chi chuan to you?

    http://www.youtube.com/user/brucerei...13/bvaC2h1X5qw
    best,

    bruce

    Happy indeed we live,
    friendly amidst the hostile.
    Amidst hostile men
    we dwell free from hatred.

    http://youtube.com/profile?user=brucereiter

  3. #12918
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Boulder, Co
    Posts
    75
    So I went by Trans yesterday,

    I read the bulshido thread before I went. I really didnt agree with alot of what those people on the thread said.

    The place has great facilities, and what looks like good instruction.

    I signed up for the month grace period and Im going in again tonight.

    It will be nice to hit bags and get a great workout, I might even learn some good techniques, and maybe even get to train with their fight team.

    Plus the classes were like 50% female......which is nice

  4. #12919
    Quote Originally Posted by sha0lin1 View Post
    As I was taught the history. Chang San Feng's Tai Chi was developed in the 1200's whereas Yang Style was developed in the early 1800's. Since I left SD I have been exposed to many different TCMA styles and none of them look anything like what SD does in any of their systems. Yes it's true that they have a few things like Tiger Crane from Hung Gar, but that is about it. Their Yang Tai Chi is nothing like Yang Tai Chi and neither is their Chen Tai Chi.
    The forms do not have the same movements?? They look ""NOTHING LIKE"" what SD does ?? then they must be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.......

    I always have to poke fun when people say things like this.... It doesnt make any sense........

    Thats like saying fighting on the ground is" NOTHING LIKE "fighting standing up and is "COMPLETELY DIFERENT"... sure there are differences but saying NOTHING and COMPLETELY???? ....C'mon

  5. #12920
    Quote Originally Posted by Facepalm View Post

    Plus the classes were like 50% female......which is nice
    This is a nice incentive!!! We do bag and shield work in every class.... F@ck kicking in the air all the time. Thats not very realistic ...plus, then when you try to kick somebody you fall on your ass!!!
    Last edited by tattooedmonk; 10-07-2009 at 08:40 AM.

  6. #12921
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by sha0lin1 View Post
    Yes it's true that they have a few things like Tiger Crane from Hung Gar, but that is about it.
    SD Tiger Crane greatly differs from the Tiger Crane I know. There are a lot of styles out there that have a version of Tiger Crane though so that doesn't mean their version is wrong. It's just not the hung gar version.

  7. #12922
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Austin, Tx
    Posts
    375
    [QUOTE=brucereiter;962997]
    Quote Originally Posted by sha0lin1 View Post
    As I was taught the history. Chang San Feng's Tai Chi was developed in the 1200's whereas Yang Style was developed in the early 1800's.

    and the cmc tai chi chuan the is taught in sd was developed in the 1900's.

    chang san feng is a legend. do not confuse legend for history.

    Yang style (楊氏) (founded by Yang Lu-ch'an, 1799-1872) this is as far back as "yang tai chi chuan" can be traced. if you go back further to chen tai chi chuan you will find that it is unlikely that chang san feng even existed let alone developed what we call yang tai chi chuan and more specifically cheng man ching styl



    i have not compared the external stuff since i never learned it i cant really say much about it.



    does the tai chi starting at about 30 seconds into the video look like yang tai chi chuan to you?

    http://www.youtube.com/user/brucerei...13/bvaC2h1X5qw
    The first form looked like Chen, the second one at 1:27 looked like Yang.

  8. #12923
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Arrakis
    Posts
    322
    Why don't we just say, once and for all, that SD and CSC teach a kuntao style from Indonesia, which has its roots in the styles taught by Chinese immigrants to Bandung in Western Java.
    It looks different and has different methods from mainland and Taiwan Chinese styles because it was geographically seperated, and influenced by elements of the local styles and culture, as well as blending elements of several Chinese styles which were taught together instead of as seperate disciplines.
    Compound this with inadequate or hasty instruction for a large number of students, some of whom go on to become instructors themselves, and you end up with something that just looks like a mess. But there are elements of the system which are worthwhile, even if it isn't a "pure" Chinese martial art.
    If one were to take a step back, ensure solid training of fundamentals, and re-focus the curriculum on a core set of forms (not trying to teach over a hundred of them in the course of a few short years), that system would produce more solid martial artists who could be proud of their style and their skills.
    If we tell the truth, as best we know it, about the origins of the style and the forms, it will lead to fewer questions down the road. Myths and legends are still fun stories to tell, but don't let students confuse them for factual occurrences.

    I say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a core of a good style here, if the focus could just be shifted.
    "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udun! Go back to the shadow, you cannot pass!"

  9. #12924
    [QUOTE=sha0lin1;963133]
    Quote Originally Posted by brucereiter View Post

    The first form looked like Chen, the second one at 1:27 looked like Yang.
    interesting that you say that. as it brings up a very important point about shaolin do. there are many variations of it(even here in atlanta among people who learned side by side)... the 2 forms you commented on are what i was taught by gary grooms and are what i taught at the csc in atlanta.
    best,

    bruce

    Happy indeed we live,
    friendly amidst the hostile.
    Amidst hostile men
    we dwell free from hatred.

    http://youtube.com/profile?user=brucereiter

  10. #12925
    Quote Originally Posted by Leto View Post
    Why don't we just say, once and for all, that SD and CSC teach a kuntao style from Indonesia, which has its roots in the styles taught by Chinese immigrants to Bandung in Western Java.
    It looks different and has different methods from mainland and Taiwan Chinese styles because it was geographically seperated, and influenced by elements of the local styles and culture, as well as blending elements of several Chinese styles which were taught together instead of as seperate disciplines.
    Compound this with inadequate or hasty instruction for a large number of students, some of whom go on to become instructors themselves, and you end up with something that just looks like a mess. But there are elements of the system which are worthwhile, even if it isn't a "pure" Chinese martial art.
    If one were to take a step back, ensure solid training of fundamentals, and re-focus the curriculum on a core set of forms (not trying to teach over a hundred of them in the course of a few short years), that system would produce more solid martial artists who could be proud of their style and their skills.
    If we tell the truth, as best we know it, about the origins of the style and the forms, it will lead to fewer questions down the road. Myths and legends are still fun stories to tell, but don't let students confuse them for factual occurrences.

    I say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a core of a good style here, if the focus could just be shifted.
    well said.
    best,

    bruce

    Happy indeed we live,
    friendly amidst the hostile.
    Amidst hostile men
    we dwell free from hatred.

    http://youtube.com/profile?user=brucereiter

  11. #12926
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Knoxville Tennessee
    Posts
    5,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Leto View Post
    Why don't we just say, once and for all, that SD and CSC teach a kuntao style from Indonesia, which has its roots in the styles taught by Chinese immigrants to Bandung in Western Java.
    It looks different and has different methods from mainland and Taiwan Chinese styles because it was geographically seperated, and influenced by elements of the local styles and culture, as well as blending elements of several Chinese styles which were taught together instead of as seperate disciplines.
    Compound this with inadequate or hasty instruction for a large number of students, some of whom go on to become instructors themselves, and you end up with something that just looks like a mess. But there are elements of the system which are worthwhile, even if it isn't a "pure" Chinese martial art.
    If one were to take a step back, ensure solid training of fundamentals, and re-focus the curriculum on a core set of forms (not trying to teach over a hundred of them in the course of a few short years), that system would produce more solid martial artists who could be proud of their style and their skills.
    If we tell the truth, as best we know it, about the origins of the style and the forms, it will lead to fewer questions down the road. Myths and legends are still fun stories to tell, but don't let students confuse them for factual occurrences.

    I say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a core of a good style here, if the focus could just be shifted.
    Perfect summation of this thread. If only the elders of SD would agree to see it this way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oso View Post
    AND, yea, a good bit of it is about whether you can fight with what you know...kinda all of it is about that.

  12. #12927
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Austin, Tx
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by Leto View Post
    Why don't we just say, once and for all, that SD and CSC teach a kuntao style from Indonesia, which has its roots in the styles taught by Chinese immigrants to Bandung in Western Java.
    It looks different and has different methods from mainland and Taiwan Chinese styles because it was geographically seperated, and influenced by elements of the local styles and culture, as well as blending elements of several Chinese styles which were taught together instead of as seperate disciplines.
    Compound this with inadequate or hasty instruction for a large number of students, some of whom go on to become instructors themselves, and you end up with something that just looks like a mess. But there are elements of the system which are worthwhile, even if it isn't a "pure" Chinese martial art.
    If one were to take a step back, ensure solid training of fundamentals, and re-focus the curriculum on a core set of forms (not trying to teach over a hundred of them in the course of a few short years), that system would produce more solid martial artists who could be proud of their style and their skills.
    If we tell the truth, as best we know it, about the origins of the style and the forms, it will lead to fewer questions down the road. Myths and legends are still fun stories to tell, but don't let students confuse them for factual occurrences.

    I say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a core of a good style here, if the focus could just be shifted.
    I agree as well. There are effective techniques and good fighters among the SD bunch. I think it is the claim that they are teaching Shaolin Kung Fu that is what rubs everyone the wrong way. I bought all of that crap hook, line and sinker when I was with them too. But I always thought the legends that were told sounded a little Shaw Brothers. After I left and started training with my current Master and going to CMA tournaments I got a great exposure to what CMA is out there, both southern and northern, internal and external. SD did not even slightly resemble any of it. I think they would be better off to drop the Shaolin and call themselves an Indonesian Art.

  13. #12928
    Quote Originally Posted by sha0lin1 View Post
    I agree as well. There are effective techniques and good fighters among the SD bunch. I think it is the claim that they are teaching Shaolin Kung Fu that is what rubs everyone the wrong way. I bought all of that crap hook, line and sinker when I was with them too. But I always thought the legends that were told sounded a little Shaw Brothers. After I left and started training with my current Master and going to CMA tournaments I got a great exposure to what CMA is out there, both southern and northern, internal and external. SD did not even slightly resemble any of it. I think they would be better off to drop the Shaolin and call themselves an Indonesian Art.
    Once again ...didnt even slightly resemble any of it....???

    What seems to be the problem with calling it Shaolin ??

    Its just a name.

    a label

    BFD

    You can call it "Dog $h!t on my lawn" for all I care

    Its people that have this attitude, that think they know what shaolin is and what it is not that really turn me off from spending anytime with other CMA artists.

    F#king elitists

    ...I know what the flavor of CMA is, I know what it is "supposed "to look like but I have to say that most of the CMA that I have seen is completely useless in a real fight.

    It may look pretty, but F#cking useless!

    SD is a branch of a large tree that because of its migration and geographical location took on a different form.

    What is everyones problem with that???

    I do not call it Kung Fu or Karate ... Its just Shaolin Martial Arts everyone has this big issue with it being called kung fu or Karate ....... once again another F#CKING label.

    Next you will be saying that because the Vietnamese, Japanese, etc. versions of Shaolin are not done the same wayyou think they should be done that they are not shaolin either ,right??


    Get over yourself.....Shut up and go train!!

    Yeah , lets just drop a name that has been used for over how many years just to satisfy all of you!!! Oy Vey
    Last edited by tattooedmonk; 10-08-2009 at 07:37 AM.

  14. #12929
    Quote Originally Posted by Leto View Post
    Why don't we just say, once and for all, that SD and CSC teach a kuntao style from Indonesia, which has its roots in the styles taught by Chinese immigrants to Bandung in Western Java.
    It looks different and has different methods from mainland and Taiwan Chinese styles because it was geographically seperated, and influenced by elements of the local styles and culture, as well as blending elements of several Chinese styles which were taught together instead of as seperate disciplines.
    Compound this with inadequate or hasty instruction for a large number of students, some of whom go on to become instructors themselves, and you end up with something that just looks like a mess. But there are elements of the system which are worthwhile, even if it isn't a "pure" Chinese martial art.
    If one were to take a step back, ensure solid training of fundamentals, and re-focus the curriculum on a core set of forms (not trying to teach over a hundred of them in the course of a few short years), that system would produce more solid martial artists who could be proud of their style and their skills.
    If we tell the truth, as best we know it, about the origins of the style and the forms, it will lead to fewer questions down the road. Myths and legends are still fun stories to tell, but don't let students confuse them for factual occurrences.

    I say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a core of a good style here, if the focus could just be shifted.
    Great post , I am right here with you , brother. Now do you have any problem with using the name " Shaolin"???

  15. #12930
    [QUOTE=brucereiter;963148]
    Quote Originally Posted by sha0lin1 View Post

    interesting that you say that. as it brings up a very important point about shaolin do. there are many variations of it(even here in atlanta among people who learned side by side)... the 2 forms you commented on are what i was taught by gary grooms and are what i taught at the csc in atlanta.
    Seeing as Yang came from Chen , to me, it stands to reason that there would be some over lap.
    from what I understand MGG is an excellent Tai Chi player and knows whats what.

    I do have to admit because most people do not spend the time to really study learn and practice the material it all looks the same .

    Your tiger should not look like preying mantis and your Hua should not look like whatever....

    Bruce , I like what you are doing . It is amazing how far you have come in a short period of time ...THats real KUNG FU!!!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •