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 889 of 1335 FirstFirst ... 389789839879887888889890891899939989 ... LastLast
Results 13,321 to 13,335 of 20011

Thread: Is Shaolin-Do for real?

  1. #13321
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Whippany NJ, USA
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by arinathos.valin View Post
    Thanks, Sal... looking forward to learning from you...

    I STILL have no idea where the SD 8 animal bagua form comes from...
    8 Animal Bagua is from one particular lineage.
    It is the style that John Painter does in his videos that came out in the 1970s.

  2. #13322
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Whippany NJ, USA
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by bodhi warrior View Post
    Let me extend my hand in friendship.
    While I disagree with some of your post, I do agree with some of them.
    Like material coming from books and videos or other sources. I personally believe that most if not all of the material sin the' taught after 1990 was not learned during his time training at the chung yen school. I have no evidence this is just an opinion. Dragon pakua, 8 animal pakua, chen taichi, the 5 animal form, could have all been learned through books or videos.
    But I do believe that the core material, the material that matches hiang's is material learned in indonesia. And I believe that hiang's complete list of material was learned in indonesia. Again this is my opinion.
    well, you might be right. But was Sin The teaching the 1990s material himself or instructors. How do you know that the instructors didn't get them from books or videos so that they could make more money getting people to get ranks from learning them?

    There's a core system of Shaolin derived southern Chinese martial arts that went to Indonesia from the Hakka people, those sets are very different from any other system.

    All those other routines just don't make sense being taught by elders in this Hakka system, they NEVER would ever learn or teach anything from outside their culture, it would be punishable by exile or even death.

  3. #13323
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Whippany NJ, USA
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by themeecer View Post
    Bruce,

    Your form looks very different than the way I was taught. I'm not being critical, I'm just surprised at the differences. Some of it may be due to your personal nuances, and some due to how it has transformed from teacher to teacher.
    Well, he was trying to do this, which is standard Hebei Xingyi Quan - Wuxing Lianhuang Quan (Five Elements Linking Form):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb0jtUxTy5s

  4. #13324
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Whippany NJ, USA
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by tattooedmonk View Post
    I would like to see what you have ...oh and I forgive you for being a pompous @$$....

    Do tell us about the Meteor Fist routines.....
    There's just one Meteor First routine.
    I'd have to see the SD version or see the names of the movements and postures so I could compare it to the set that (drawings, not video) I have in my archives.
    It comes from the original northern Songshan Shaolin area, it is practiced today rarely. It is very distinct, hard to miss, nothing else looks like it.

    I had heard it was one of the newer sets that SD has added?

  5. #13325
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Whippany NJ, USA
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by brucereiter View Post
    the gao bagua i am learning uses a heel/toe step almost like normal walking.
    Gao is heavily merged with Luohan Quan, which has that.

  6. #13326
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Whippany NJ, USA
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaichang View Post
    True JP but the fact that Cen Man Ching was one of the major promoters of Tai Chi would only add to the fact that most "Yang" Tai Chi Forms would take on that flavor. It is the subtle differences that seperates it from the form posted. KC
    But that not true at all, that's not what happened.
    Traditional Yang was always the thing to learn.

    He became a major promoter of Taiji Quan in the USA and outside of Taiwan. In Taiwan he wasn't considered any good except by his own students and people had proved that he only has spent a very short amount of time learning, if at all, from Yang Chengfu himself.

    His books, yes, had very good insight to the workings of taichi, and his personal style of taiji quan was effective when he used it. But it wasn't exactly what he taught others and since he was one of the first people teaching Taiji Quan in the USA that what made it get so popular mostly. You had to take what he did and said and make it your own (by learning more TJQ elsewhere and combining things) for it to be of any use. Most average people that learn this style are pretty weak and aweful for the most part in comparison to people that do standard Yang family Taiji Quan.

    In China, you could never say "most "Yang" Tai Chi Forms would take on that flavor", that would make no sense and be completely outside of the facts. Only in the USa would that be true, if that.
    Traditional Yang stylists wouldn't be doing his style at all, and he didn't get known until the 1950s in the USA and his form didn't get popular here till the late 60s.

  7. #13327
    Dang it. it is 12:42 in the AM here and after reading this thread and watching the youtube videos I want to go outside and practice. I guess that is a good thing. it sure beats me wanting to sit here on my backside and argue with people.

    Question for the SD people ... what is your favorite form of ours? You can break it down into categories if you like.

    Prior to black belt I like Connecting Fist and broadsword. But 3rd bird, Yen He, is getting close to surpassing Connecting Fist.
    After that I like our Hou Tien Chi and Shien Tien Chi meditation. (I know .. they aren't forms, but I love teaching it and doing it) Form wise: Tai Chi (CMC) and 7 section chain whip. (the nine section is too long for my ADD mind)

    Least favorite: Blue belt staff form.
    themeecer actually shares a lot of the passion that Bruce Lee had about adopting techniques into your own way of 'expressing yourself.'
    -shaolinarab
    (Nicest thing ever said about me on these boards.)

  8. #13328
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Whippany NJ, USA
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by themeecer View Post
    Dang it. it is 12:42 in the AM here and after reading this thread and watching the youtube videos I want to go outside and practice. I guess that is a good thing. it sure beats me wanting to sit here on my backside and argue with people.

    Question for the SD people ... what is your favorite form of ours? You can break it down into categories if you like.

    Prior to black belt I like Connecting Fist and broadsword. But 3rd bird, Yen He, is getting close to surpassing Connecting Fist.
    After that I like our Hou Tien Chi and Shien Tien Chi meditation. (I know .. they aren't forms, but I love teaching it and doing it) Form wise: Tai Chi (CMC) and 7 section chain whip. (the nine section is too long for my ADD mind)

    Least favorite: Blue belt staff form.
    Somewhere in my archives there's an old list from 1980s of which SD routines were for each rank. I have so much stuff, it would take a while to find it, if I still have it and hopefully didn't throw it away.

  9. #13329
    Quote Originally Posted by themeecer View Post
    Bruce,

    Your form looks very different than the way I was taught. I'm not being critical, I'm just surprised at the differences. Some of it may be due to your personal nuances, and some due to how it has transformed from teacher to teacher.
    meecer,

    no worries ... i put the videos up for critique and conversation ...
    i am sure most of the differences are my own personal nuances.
    the way i approach hsing i that i learned in sd is very different than the way i was taught. i have changed my approach to hsing i to reflect my current understanding of what hsing i is and have been influenced by a few outside teachers lessons along the way. as my current understanding changes my form changes.


    what are some differences in your approach?
    did you like or dislike what you saw?
    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. #13330
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce
    what are some differences in your approach?
    I too noticed some differences, not a critique mind you.

    After the first crushing hand, step back- we do two punches were as you do one before pivoting and crossing the hands.

    After cannon fist, step back- you do either chopping fist or 3-body, we do crossing fist (right hand up) the 3-body or chopping.

    Before the turn, you do cannon fist-we do stopping fist.
    "Pain heals, chicks dig scars..Glory lasts forever"......

  11. #13331
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,113
    This is more like it...thanks Sal!!
    KC it's ok to disagree with me!! But 64 is the CMC form......with slight changes...one change GMS made was the speed of the form.....slowed it way down....we're taught 25 min. to complete, CMC taught it as 10 min. one reason he gave was to increase strength & sensitivity. Don't know if this came from GMIe or something he did himself.
    He did say that it was GMIe who taught him Baqua & Tai Chi.....he spoke of doing Tai Chi on the beach when he was a kid and how it made him feel.
    BQ

  12. #13332
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Whippany NJ, USA
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Baqualin View Post
    This is more like it...thanks Sal!!
    KC it's ok to disagree with me!! But 64 is the CMC form......with slight changes...one change GMS made was the speed of the form.....slowed it way down....we're taught 25 min. to complete, CMC taught it as 10 min. one reason he gave was to increase strength & sensitivity. Don't know if this came from GMIe or something he did himself.
    He did say that it was GMIe who taught him Baqua & Tai Chi.....he spoke of doing Tai Chi on the beach when he was a kid and how it made him feel.
    BQ
    But Chinese people at that time did not teach taji to children (nor XY ad BG), it was considering detrimental to their health and development. It was for people over 25 or so, because you needed at least 10 years experience stretching and developing your tendons and ligaments via a long fist martial arts.
    I have never seen except in modern times any Chinese master of internal martial arts that didn't first learn a long fist martial art and THEN transitioned into an internal one.

  13. #13333
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Canzonieri View Post
    But Chinese people at that time did not teach taji to children (nor XY ad BG), it was considering detrimental to their health and development. It was for people over 25 or so, because you needed at least 10 years experience stretching and developing your tendons and ligaments via a long fist martial arts.
    I have never seen except in modern times any Chinese master of internal martial arts that didn't first learn a long fist martial art and THEN transitioned into an internal one.
    In general history I would say your right, but GMS was with GMIe 8 hours a day for 10 years and learned Tai Chi in his teenage years after he had studied other external styles first (according to him)......I also used the word kid because I'm an old **** and anybody under 21 is a kid to old ****s
    BQ

  14. #13334
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,113
    I also agree that one should study external styles for a while before dedicated themselves to the internal....as said you learn your basic stances, power generation, strength and of course stretching.
    BQ

  15. #13335
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Whippany NJ, USA
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Baqualin View Post
    I also agree that one should study external styles for a while before dedicated themselves to the internal....as said you learn your basic stances, power generation, strength and of course stretching.
    BQ
    Long fist isn't necessarily external, it's very internal, that's why you learn it first before Taiji, it's that it expands the body, and builds strength, etc., things that you would want a pre-teen and teen to develop.

    Long fist being stuff like Taizu Chang Quan, Mizong Quan, Tongbei Quan, Hong Quan, Luohan Quan, etc. Just about every famous old time master learned one of these first.

    Here's one thing I wonder about SD curriculum.
    As far as it's Northern CMA material, how come I have never heard of anyone teaching the preliminary routines and qi gong sets that you must learn first before doing the more public and well known sets?
    All I have ever seen is routines being taught that are the well known public ones.

    There's a lot of material that has to be learned first in order to build a solid foundation for doing efficient and effective northern Chinese martial arts, such as Shaolin. Where are they?

    That's how come I kept saying the mechanics are off, without these foundational routines and qigong sets, none of the later routines make real sense to a person.

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
  •