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 1318 of 1335 FirstFirst ... 318818121812681308131613171318131913201328 ... LastLast
Results 19,756 to 19,770 of 20011

Thread: Is Shaolin-Do for real?

  1. #19756
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    376
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie View Post
    Yes and no. It's a Chinese-indies art. A Chinese community in Indonesia. Consider Ching yen and what we know about it---Liu us peng, tad djie, and whoever else taught there. What are their backgrounds and who taught what? We don't know precisely.--we have some generalities But technique wise, sd probably, IMO, has much Indonesian influence. Students also shape curricula. A guy versed in kuntao/Silat could have changed the school by challenging prevailing CMA perceptions. We know ggm ie was an opium addict and was coaxed out of addiction by his training brothers---who was in charge then? Certainly not ggm ie. so who knows how much influence there was?

    So it doesn't matter what sd is, in a wAy. I don't care much anymore. I like drilling and techniques, and I'll study anything. But I don't want more forms. I just want better use of em.

    Btw--proper understanding of sd, I think, comes from mastery of chinna. Your forms are all throwing and grabbing. Never let anyone tell you otherwise. Lol. Unless he's really good

    Just curious if you ever learned any of the drunken immortals forms? If so, what are your thoughts?

  2. #19757
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Permanent state of Denial
    Posts
    2,272
    Quote Originally Posted by bodhi warrior View Post
    Just curious if you ever learned any of the drunken immortals forms? If so, what are your thoughts?
    Yeah. I learned flexible, adaptive, spear, straight sword, and stomping--plus then non- 8 immortals crazy mad drunk. Can't remember parts of stomping and straight sword. Anyone have notes on those they're willing to share?

    My thoughts? They're hard, but fun. Some good stuff, prob some bad--but I love drunken style, good or bad.


    Seriously, though...notes, anyone? I learned stomping and Jian in a seminar---forgot some sequences b/c no notes were given. Ill pm u my email address.
    Last edited by Shaolin Wookie; 06-25-2014 at 11:38 AM.

  3. #19758
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    376
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie View Post
    Yeah. I learned flexible, adaptive, spear, straight sword, and stomping--plus then non- 8 immortals crazy mad drunk. Can't remember parts of stomping and straight sword. Anyone have notes on those they're willing to share?

    My thoughts? They're hard, but fun. Some good stuff, prob some bad--but I love drunken style, good or bad.


    Seriously, though...notes, anyone? I learned stomping and Jian in a seminar---forgot some sequences b/c no notes were given. Ill pm u my email address.
    I only know drunken broadsword, and mad drunk. I've seen some of the immortals forms and agree they do look difficult. But I'd love to try them.
    It looks like Master Mullins has released a new DVD on some of conditioning aspects of the immortals. Might be worth a look.

  4. #19759
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    kentucky
    Posts
    350
    I got the mullins dvd, its worth the money.
    ...or is there something i have missed a glimpse of phantoms in the mist. Traveling down a dusty road bent forward with this heavy load..

  5. #19760
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canada!
    Posts
    23,110
    Shaolin Do is real Shaolin Do.

    It's not real anything else.

    Nor is it firetruck or camel and it's definitely not outer space. Only shaolin do is shaolin do...
    Kung Fu is good for you.

  6. #19761
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Permanent state of Denial
    Posts
    2,272
    Quote Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
    Shaolin Do is real Shaolin Do.

    It's not real anything else.

    Nor is it firetruck or camel and it's definitely not outer space. Only shaolin do is shaolin do...
    But it's not just its own thing. Everyone who practices at brown belt level will recognize Jing Woo Jie Quan (see here). There are differences in the form, but they follow the same general pattern. What most SD practitioners will see as a major difference, however, is that we have many "crossed hands" positions, like the hands/wrists are shackled and are being broken as the palms/arms open up for a sweep. Seems to me that what we practice is a blend of normal Jie Quan and Wu Song Qi Jie Quan (see here). SD tends to see itself in other forms, since we have the same techniques, whether anyone else likes it or not. Now, more than likely they're cobbled-together forms (someone cobbled them together or changed them or made them up), but it doesn't erase the links we see in the forms. SD is SD, but we don't know what SD is---can't trust GM The', and he admitted to making some stuff up, creating Shaolin Do in teh 1970s for marketing purposes---and so it's not just itself. It was something before that, and something else after that point.

  7. #19762
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Permanent state of Denial
    Posts
    2,272
    Lian Wu Zhang has much more of the crossed/shackled hands, and is taught as a family of Jie Quan. It's not, in reality, as far as I have researched through Jing Woo contacts and students of Su Ke Gang that I've contacted. But in SD, the two are linked, and Lian Wu Zhang picked up some of the Wu Song "Chained hands" techniques.

  8. #19763
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    10,561
    Blog Entries
    6
    Now, more than likely they're cobbled-together forms (someone cobbled them together or changed them or made them up), but it doesn't erase the links we see in the forms.
    It's a simple thing to steal material then try to claim a relationship between the ones who authentically learned the material in comparison to those who stole it. its still WRONG
    Hung Sing Boyz, we gottit on lock down
    when he's around quick to ground and pound a clown
    Bruh we thought you knew better
    when it comes to head huntin, ain't no one can do it better

  9. #19764
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Permanent state of Denial
    Posts
    2,272
    Quote Originally Posted by hskwarrior View Post
    It's a simple thing to steal material then try to claim a relationship between the ones who authentically learned the material in comparison to those who stole it. its still WRONG
    "Authentically learn"?
    "Stole" mental content or body postures? Lol. The only thing "wrong" is the fraud of calling an original form by an ancient name in order to sell it to students.

    What is inauthentic learning? If you learn something--even astrology, hung gar, or phrenology--you learn it, and your learning is authentic. Is it any good? Different question. I've met many CMA guys who preach the gospel of never going to the ground, the utility of protective karate fat (muscles are so passé) and deadly eye pokes capable of stopping a RnC. They probably learned to talk that way. Either way, their learning isn't any good.

    Some forms were copied, some weren't. Liu su peng taught 18 tai (roc) forms. I've only ever seen tai in hsing-I before. Both brothers teach the same core tai forms. I've seen 3 and practice the first 3 as a set. The structure of the tai forms is pretty much standard, and not far from the mechanics of sd's core stuff--the generic birds/cranes, for instance. Maybe Liu su peng is a myth, maybe not. I know some people who met him, though. Makes me think those are hallmarks of Chung yen shaolin in Bandung, but perhaps not "ancient" shaolin. If peng's tai style---which has a particularly non-standard-CMA feel to it is Ching yen, it'd explain why some of the The' bros material feels and looks different than, say, hua quan or 7* mantis.

  10. #19765
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Philadelphia, Pa
    Posts
    1,076
    The eye gouge is obsolete thanks to the mighty 3 Stooges

    Quote Originally Posted by bawang View Post
    like that old japanese zen monk that grabs white woman student titties to awaken them to zen, i grab titties of kung fu people to awaken them to truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Canzonieri View Post
    You can discuss discrepancies and so on in people's posts without ripping them apart. So easy to do sitting behind a computer screen anonymously, but in person I'm sure you'd be very different, unless you're a total misanthrope without any friends.

  11. #19766
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie View Post
    "Authentically learn"?
    "Stole" mental content or body postures? Lol. The only thing "wrong" is the fraud of calling an original form by an ancient name in order to sell it to students.

    What is inauthentic learning? If you learn something--even astrology, hung gar, or phrenology--you learn it, and your learning is authentic. Is it any good? Different question. I've met many CMA guys who preach the gospel of never going to the ground, the utility of protective karate fat (muscles are so passé) and deadly eye pokes capable of stopping a RnC. They probably learned to talk that way. Either way, their learning isn't any good.

    Some forms were copied, some weren't. Liu su peng taught 18 tai (roc) forms. I've only ever seen tai in hsing-I before. Both brothers teach the same core tai forms. I've seen 3 and practice the first 3 as a set. The structure of the tai forms is pretty much standard, and not far from the mechanics of sd's core stuff--the generic birds/cranes, for instance. Maybe Liu su peng is a myth, maybe not. I know some people who met him, though. Makes me think those are hallmarks of Chung yen shaolin in Bandung, but perhaps not "ancient" shaolin. If peng's tai style---which has a particularly non-standard-CMA feel to it is Ching yen, it'd explain why some of the The' bros material feels and looks different than, say, hua quan or 7* mantis.
    Tread Carefully! Liu su peng probably did not authentically learn anything either. can you think of any other hallmarks of Chung Yen Shaolin in Bandung? Would it be possible to get a picture of Liu Su Peng? The tai forms have always intrigued me.

  12. #19767
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie View Post
    "Authentically learn"?
    "Stole" mental content or body postures? Lol. The only thing "wrong" is the fraud of calling an original form by an ancient name in order to sell it to students.

    What is inauthentic learning? If you learn something--even astrology, hung gar, or phrenology--you learn it, and your learning is authentic. Is it any good? Different question. I've met many CMA guys who preach the gospel of never going to the ground, the utility of protective karate fat (muscles are so passé) and deadly eye pokes capable of stopping a RnC. They probably learned to talk that way. Either way, their learning isn't any good.

    Some forms were copied, some weren't. Liu su peng taught 18 tai (roc) forms. I've only ever seen tai in hsing-I before. Both brothers teach the same core tai forms. I've seen 3 and practice the first 3 as a set. The structure of the tai forms is pretty much standard, and not far from the mechanics of sd's core stuff--the generic birds/cranes, for instance. Maybe Liu su peng is a myth, maybe not. I know some people who met him, though. Makes me think those are hallmarks of Chung yen shaolin in Bandung, but perhaps not "ancient" shaolin. If peng's tai style---which has a particularly non-standard-CMA feel to it is Ching yen, it'd explain why some of the The' bros material feels and looks different than, say, hua quan or 7* mantis.
    In all honesty though, this is truly interesting. The structure of the tai forms is basically standard across schools, however different aspects of the techniques seem to get different emphases from one instructor to the other, and as you say not far from the mechanics of Sd's core stuff. Thank you.

  13. #19768
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Southeast (Kentucky)
    Posts
    173
    Still going! Amazing. And I see HSK is still hanging around.

  14. #19769
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    10,561
    Blog Entries
    6
    I got one eye on EVERYTHING
    Hung Sing Boyz, we gottit on lock down
    when he's around quick to ground and pound a clown
    Bruh we thought you knew better
    when it comes to head huntin, ain't no one can do it better

  15. #19770

    Shaolin Do = KunTao = Kung Fu

    Plain and simple.

    Read Uncle Willem's new book...Journey Through Time. He indirectly substantiates many of SD and SKT's claims....


    Frank, the only eye you have on everything is the big brown eye. How's your hardcore underground gung fu family Tong?!


    Any questions or comments or discussions about SD and related art?!!

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
  •