Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Kymus]

the feeling off of them is like why should be look like THEM, we're NOT them. it looks like no one ever put some serious training in at all. just simply memorized the moves and thats it. and to see black belts on.....oh thats even worse

Word on the street is that there is no consensus on how the forms should be done, just that the real old school peeps don't have forms that look 100% horrible.

[kwaichang]

You are correct I have learned the Hsing Ie in SD 3 different ways. Not too different but different non the less This always disturbed me but truthfully what happens is this, Teacher A teaches student B then B to C etcetera and every one of them sems to chang the form in some way. That always sucked to me. But i understand little Nuances being different but whole moves ? Nah. So I train them hard the way I was taught them and try to produce Jing in the moves etc. There are too many pauses at a place of a punch etc but I think this is due to the 1-30 short forms taught one at a time and this bleeds over to the long forms. I taught them one at a time but had the students connect them with flow etc to help with continuity. KC

[Empty_Cup]

Judging from the comments of yours I have read over time, you have significantly more years of experience than I do with martial arts in general, and with SD specifically. I am unfamiliar with most of the forms in the video, and I am asking, in a genuinely open-ended way, if the above comment means you think that, say, the broadsword demo by GMT is fundamentally correct, but not performed at full speed and vigor?

As many others have said about the many systems SD attempts to teach, each has its own set of guiding principles and philosophies (and by "philosophies" I don't mean "Turn the other cheek rather than initiate a confrontation", I mean "always keep your body turned when fighting to minimize attackable surface areas") Is your contention that the master-level demos in that video are being performed in accordance with the principles/philosophies of the system of which the forms are a part, and merely being done at slow speed/low intensity? If not, why?

For example, a bagua "principle" might be "keep the weight on the back leg," and so you would expect a bagua master to keep his weight on the back leg when performing a demonstration, regardless of how "balls to the wall" he is doing it. You wouldn't expect a bagua master to begin weighting on the front leg, or ignoring weighting altogether, merely because he is doing a low-intensity demonstration, would you?

This is a good post. I think that in most SD classes the memorization of the form is given the most priority. Then it's on to the next one. This is a major criticism I have of SD even though I'm a practitioner.

There are exceptions, though, especially as folks get above 2nd or 3rd BB they tend to "specialize" in one style or another and emphasize more of the principles/philosophy you talk about. This might even mean they read a book about theory or take an outside class/seminar or two to further pursue their interest in that particular style. I see nothing wrong with continuing to learn as much as you can.

[hskwarrior]

[Leto]

Word on the street is that there is no consensus on how the forms should be done, just that the real old school peeps don't have forms that look 100% horrible.

My observation has been that the "old school" guys forms don't really look any better than anyone else's, including Sin The. That's who everyone has learned their forms from. However, they do tend to hit harder due to better conditioning and more time spent on basics. Subsequent generations' forms look much the same, but don't have the same level of physical conditioning. At least the old guys can make up for less than optimal technique with strength and toughness developed through hard training. Later students spend more time just mimicking and memorizing forms.

[kwaichang]

I was a4th BB in Shotokan when I started to take SD. in 92, I was taught the short stick form . I made myself do the form 500 x and work on ap's before learning the next one. One could do this with all forms but they choose not to. That is why thay look as they do. I have figured that I have done the 1st BB Tiger form Ching Ka Fu Hu Chien maybe 1500 times since I started in 92. That may not seem like much but it only took me maybe 10 years to do it. That many times. Poor training methods while doing it is what produces poor tech and form. Toomuch emphasis on just getting them done then on to the next. No Patience in the present. KC

[Kymus]

Creator of the golden snake style, I assume

[Judge Pen]

You are correct I have learned the Hsing Ie in SD 3 different ways. Not too different but different non the less This always disturbed me but truthfully what happens is this, Teacher A teaches student B then B to C etcetera and every one of them sems to chang the form in some way. That always sucked to me. But i understand little Nuances being different but whole moves ? Nah. So I train them hard the way I was taught them and try to produce Jing in the moves etc. There are too many pauses at a place of a punch etc but I think this is due to the 1-30 short forms taught one at a time and this bleeds over to the long forms. I taught them one at a time but had the students connect them with flow etc to help with continuity. KC

We used to compare notes on this: I was first taught this way, but I learned it a different way from this teacher. How do you do it. Eventually, it becomes the way you do it whether you want it to or not.

I think it is unfair to compare SD forms to CMA forms (even if the SD form was originally a kung fu form such as Hua Chuan or Xingyi) because it is done with the underylying principals of SD primarily with some consideration given to the uniqueness of the particualr system. In my experience, SD students spend most of their time training short-form and all the forms we do display those principals.

It's my experience that forcing students to learn too many forms aside, SD is a practical art that teaches good fighting fundamentals. I've sparred with many different people of many different styles and I always felt that my skills were on par with the people I was sparring. My forms looked bad, but if we fought, they would know it and have respect for me and my training at the end of the match.

[Judge Pen]

We used to compare notes on this: I was first taught this way, but I learned it a different way from this teacher. How do you do it. Eventually, it becomes the way you do it whether you want it to or not.

I think it is unfair to compare SD forms to CMA forms (even if the SD form was originally a kung fu form such as Hua Chuan or Xingyi) because it is done with the underylying principals of SD primarily with some consideration given to the uniqueness of the particualr system. In my experience, SD students spend most of their time training short-form and all the forms we do display those principals.

It's my experience that forcing students to learn too many forms aside, SD is a practical art that teaches good fighting fundamentals. I've sparred with many different people of many different styles and I always felt that my skills were on par with the people I was sparring. My forms looked bad, but if we fought, they would know it and have respect for me and my training at the end of the match.

I take back part of this statement; to those that call what SD is as Kung Fu, then it is fair to criticize the forms, but I don't think SD's forms are supposed to look the same as CMA. The fundamentals are taught differently. You can either try to change your forms to look more like CMA, or do them they way they are taught (as was on display in the Indoneisan videos) which is similar movements with a different flavor. That's not bad as long as you are honest with what you are doing.

[kwaichang]

I agree , as stated all people do it different but to put a chinese flavor because the form is from china may not be the SD way due to the Indonesian influence. Or perhaps the Sin The influence as well with emphasis on other things and tech and strengths in the art. KC

[Iron Palm]

I agree , as stated all people do it different but to put a chinese flavor because the form is from china may not be the SD way due to the Indonesian influence. Or perhaps the Sin The influence as well with emphasis on other things and tech and strengths in the art. KC

Maybe your other MA experience has allowed you to intuit the correct principles, or maybe the east coast teachers are more thorough, but in my experience with SD, the reason students like Jake *******ize forms or try to "chinafy" them is because of a leadership void.

Every form was taught 100 different ways, and the more often it was taught, the more variations there were. (And for the Non-SD people, variations don't mean a 5-10 degree additional rotation of a foot in a stance, it means whole movements suddenly omitted/added) While training on my own at year 10, I would often think "I have no idea how much progress I've made with this one form because I still have no idea how it's actually performed."

I'm convinced that this was all intentional. As someone else on this board said, the Soard schools functioned as a personality cult, and I'm sure this system was designed to allow endless criticism by senior people, thereby ensuring reliance on them by the more junior.

If I had to guess (and really that's all I can do), I would agree with Judge Pen's assertion that the short forms make up the core or principle(s) of SD. But it always seemed so out of default: by being taught empty series of movements and being made to feel constantly wrong, students naturally resort to the short forms. Hence, with no other ideas of how to generate power, you start seeing short form #1 everywhere, and Hua Chuan, He Hu, Bai Hao, Xing Yi, and Zui Chuan all look the same.

I attended many of the "festival" seminars as well as regular classes, and outside of the basic shape of stances and direction of punches, no real direction was ever given. This was even despite the many opportunities to do so at the seminars themselves, the informal seminar review sessions sometimes held by local instructors/master, and at testing if/when the seminar material was required.

Actually, testing is probably the best example of the lack of direction in SD, or at least on the west side. I sat on many testing panels, and was personally told by instructors and masters only to score students between 70 and 75 (out of 100). No matter how well the student did, the maximum he could be awarded was a "C", and we were specifically prohibited from failing anyone ever. What determined how many of those precious 5 points we were permitted to allot? General considerations applied across every form: "low stances", "speed", "snap & power", "fluidity", and "spirit". Zero form/system specific direction was ever given, nor was it used to evaluate a student's progress in any specific areas.

Unsurprising, considering that a huge portion of the west coast curriculum is from books.

Again, my teachers were all west-side people, but whenever I attempted to inquire into the "how" of the forms/systems, I was usually met with ambiguity or pseudo-mystical nonsense meant to imply that I was too ignorant/too junior/too unskilled/too physically weak to comprehend. Actual examples:

General Question: What is the weighting in that stance? Is it an equally weighted horse stance, or is it more of a back-weighted reverse-bow? And how are the shoulders oriented relative to the waist and legs?
Master-level Answer: Yes. *Giggle/benign smile*
Follow Up: "Yes"? Your answer doesn't fit the format of the question and I don't understand.
Master-level Answer: Just don't worry about the specifics so much. Answers will come with time and training. *Benign smile*

Tai Chi Question: I don't understand how I "use my dan tien" in this posture. What does that mean?
Instructor-level Answer: You'll understand when you learn bagua. *Giggle/Benign smile*

Bagua Question: I don't understand how I "use my dan tien" in this posture. What does that mean?
Instructor-level Answer: You'll understand when you learn xing yi. *Giggle/Benign smile*

Xing Yi Question: I don't understand how I "use my dan tien" in this posture. What does that mean?
Instructor-level Answer: You're a 2nd degree black belt and you dont know this? You should come to the tai chi class more often. *Disappointed frown*

Application Question: How do you apply this?
Master-level Answer: Oh, it could be like a sweep, or maybe its like a punch, or maybe its like a block, you could use it a lot of different ways.

Application Question: The foot position of this posture seems really dangerous/counter-productive to actual fighting. Why do we stress this?
Master-level Answer: That's just the way it's done. It was good enough for the monks, it should be good enough for you too.

[Kymus]

Based on what I've heard, it sounds to me like the Soards were some serious money grubbers, had little in the way of morals, and ran a belt factory.

I get the impression that they built up a cult of personality around Sin The and maybe themselves as well. I've read how they loved telling all sorts of stories about Sin The. If they ran a kids class, I can only imagine that those kids must've thought that Sin The was Bruce Lee's teacher (assuming they believed all the crazy stories that get passed around about Sin The).

Iron Palm, the Q&A that you mention really says to me that for them it wasn't about the art (captain obvious, I know), but about $$$$. That's the only conclusion I can come to based on their circular logic. I don't think they were really that stupid.

Someone wanna fill me in on how they were running a separate SD branch but were still cool with Sin The? I never got that.

[Empty_Cup]

Maybe your other MA experience has allowed you to intuit the correct principles, or maybe the east coast teachers are more thorough, but in my experience with SD, the reason students like Jake *******ize forms or try to "chinafy" them is because of a leadership void.

Every form was taught 100 different ways, and the more often it was taught, the more variations there were. (And for the Non-SD people, variations don't mean a 5-10 degree additional rotation of a foot in a stance, it means whole movements suddenly omitted/added) While training on my own at year 10, I would often think "I have no idea how much progress I've made with this one form because I still have no idea how it's actually performed."

I'm convinced that this was all intentional. As someone else on this board said, the Soard schools functioned as a personality cult, and I'm sure this system was designed to allow endless criticism by senior people, thereby ensuring reliance on them by the more junior.

If I had to guess (and really that's all I can do), I would agree with Judge Pen's assertion that the short forms make up the core or principle(s) of SD. But it always seemed so out of default: by being taught empty series of movements and being made to feel constantly wrong, students naturally resort to the short forms. Hence, with no other ideas of how to generate power, you start seeing short form #1 everywhere, and Hua Chuan, He Hu, Bai Hao, Xing Yi, and Zui Chuan all look the same.

I attended many of the "festival" seminars as well as regular classes, and outside of the basic shape of stances and direction of punches, no real direction was ever given. This was even despite the many opportunities to do so at the seminars themselves, the informal seminar review sessions sometimes held by local instructors/master, and at testing if/when the seminar material was required.

Actually, testing is probably the best example of the lack of direction in SD, or at least on the west side. I sat on many testing panels, and was personally told by instructors and masters only to score students between 70 and 75 (out of 100). No matter how well the student did, the maximum he could be awarded was a "C", and we were specifically prohibited from failing anyone ever. What determined how many of those precious 5 points we were permitted to allot? General considerations applied across every form: "low stances", "speed", "snap & power", "fluidity", and "spirit". Zero form/system specific direction was ever given, nor was it used to evaluate a student's progress in any specific areas.

Unsurprising, considering that a huge portion of the west coast curriculum is from books.

Again, my teachers were all west-side people, but whenever I attempted to inquire into the "how" of the forms/systems, I was usually met with ambiguity or pseudo-mystical nonsense meant to imply that I was too ignorant/too junior/too unskilled/too physically weak to comprehend. Actual examples:

General Question: What is the weighting in that stance? Is it an equally weighted horse stance, or is it more of a back-weighted reverse-bow? And how are the shoulders oriented relative to the waist and legs?
Master-level Answer: Yes. *Giggle/benign smile*
Follow Up: "Yes"? Your answer doesn't fit the format of the question and I don't understand.
Master-level Answer: Just don't worry about the specifics so much. Answers will come with time and training. *Benign smile*

Tai Chi Question: I don't understand how I "use my dan tien" in this posture. What does that mean?
Instructor-level Answer: You'll understand when you learn bagua. *Giggle/Benign smile*

Bagua Question: I don't understand how I "use my dan tien" in this posture. What does that mean?
Instructor-level Answer: You'll understand when you learn xing yi. *Giggle/Benign smile*

Xing Yi Question: I don't understand how I "use my dan tien" in this posture. What does that mean?
Instructor-level Answer: You're a 2nd degree black belt and you dont know this? You should come to the tai chi class more often. *Disappointed frown*

Application Question: How do you apply this?
Master-level Answer: Oh, it could be like a sweep, or maybe its like a punch, or maybe its like a block, you could use it a lot of different ways.

Application Question: The foot position of this posture seems really dangerous/counter-productive to actual fighting. Why do we stress this?
Master-level Answer: That's just the way it's done. It was good enough for the monks, it should be good enough for you too.

This is really sad. NO student should be treated like that. If the Soards really ran things like that, they are pieces of ****. I can tell you that is NOT how classes are run in my area.

[hskwarrior]

Application Question: The foot position of this posture seems really dangerous/counter-productive to actual fighting. Why do we stress this?
Master-level Answer: That's just the way it's done. It was good enough for the monks, it should be good enough for you too.

thats Cult Leader mind control sh1t right there

[kwaichang]

Iron Palm I am sorry you got associated with those people out there. It is my understanding that they basically bought their way to where they are. Sad but True. I assure you there is some of that every where with SD to a degree but not that bad. I just ignored all that stuff, when I was teaching many students complained to the owner of the school that I was being too tough on them . I was using tried and tru progressions all they had to do was their homework but they wanted it spoon fed in a silver spoon too them. I didnt though. But that didnt stop the whining. HSK you are right I would have punched one if they acted so cursory toward me. I dont stand for that Shizen KC