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 953 of 1335 FirstFirst ... 45385390394395195295395495596310031053 ... LastLast
Results 14,281 to 14,295 of 20011

Thread: Is Shaolin-Do for real?

  1. #14281
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    kentucky
    Posts
    350
    no disrespect to any of the masters but there is a long list of what i call "old school master" that i would love to get a little time with ,, bill, eric, frank, gary, garry, tim, bob, mike, gordan, james, tony, john... I have had my a$$ handed to me by more then one of those on this list and always learned something from it,, even if it was to never do that again..lol
    ...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..

  2. #14282
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Knoxville Tennessee
    Posts
    5,520
    Quote Originally Posted by kungfujunky View Post
    Come by and check him out!

    And Bodhi I like your list. Although I would go for Nance over Smith myself.
    I took a seminar with both Grooms and Nance and I was very impressed with Nance. Master Garry and his sons were my primary teacher so I felt like I received good practical instruction. I would like to have had the opportunity to train with Master Green.
    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.

  3. #14283
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Permanent state of Denial
    Posts
    2,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Leto View Post
    If I were still a member of CSC or shaolin do at this point, I would have serious misgivings about continuing. At the very least, I would start questioning everything I had been told up to that point, and expect to get full discolusure on anything I was subsequently taught. And I would share any information I found with everyone around me, whether it came from the masters or not.
    This is good advice in general. I think one of the main issues is that people have preconceived notions of what asian martial arts should be like. Many students want to kowtow to received knowledge (a bit like colleges in that way), and they want an intellectual brandname/heritage. There should be a patrilineal line of descent, certain customs/rituals, etc.

    I've always been a rationalist with a healthy skeptical streak, so I questioned the lineage pretty ****ed quickly. I think most people do, but it's like anything else. Most people at the schools don't really care, and they get defensive because they do not know anything more than what they've been told by senior guys. They therefore don't want to question it when pressed to do so, and they soon become set in their opinions--everyone else must be wrong.

    People who get down on teh history neglect the art because they lose confidence in it. I've been around the MA block, so to speak, and I can make the chin-na work standing or on the ground, I can throw, sweep, etc. pretty well, and I can hit hard. My teacher taught these well, but I lost confidence in the techniques a couple of years in (though never losing confidence in the teacher). I can make this art work, but there was a time a couple of years ago where I lost confidence in the art b/c of the retarded advertising campaign. I wanted to feel proud about the art, but it's hard to do that when you disagree about history, etc. We do Jiang style bagua, Cheng Man Ching's modified Tai Chi 64 (originated in Taiwan), etc. When you do the research and correctly identify things for research/background purposes, you just want to be able to talk freely about it. Nowadays, I do, come hell or highwater, raised eyebrows or rolling eyes.

    Anyways, I've been putting together a little online resource for the "alternative" history of SD---from Chung Yen Shaolin (Central Plains Wushu) on. It talks about the many different teachers who taught there, GM Ie's opium habit/rehab (his buddies got him back into training to help him kick the habit), and the basic structure of Chung Yen. It also provides background info (Jiang/Cheng Man Ching, Jie Chien [from Jing Woo], Lian Wu Zhang [Jing Woo, too]) for many of the forms. It's not derogatory or "whistleblower" in nature, and I certainly do not have all the information that exists. It's what I've gotten from 4 years of research. So far, it's pretty respectful in all ways, as I see it. It just condenses what we know is true, and leaves out the mythical stuff that's on every SD website.

    As a researcher, essayist, and college professor, I hope it'll help a discussion get started about the more practical origins of SD's curriculum. Maybe it'll help those interested in a practical history of what they're doing. I've never been a fan of dogmas.
    Last edited by Shaolin Wookie; 05-08-2012 at 06:32 AM.

  4. #14284
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Permanent state of Denial
    Posts
    2,272
    But anyways, I do love the art as I practice it. I don't really agree with the way that many other people practice it, as if one interpretation of movements were the ONLY correct interpretation. There are tons of sweeps and throws in the art that others--who either cannot sweep, throw, or are terrified of going to the ground--transform into "pluck his jabbing arm out of the air and break" techniques, or else travesty as "kicks."

    The art has to work for you, and it certainly can. For the past couple of years I've told every student--practice the hell out of the techniques, ippons [slightly modified], and chin-na. The art will make sense after that. Love/hate SD, the basic curriculum is very strong if you teach it right with plenty of contact and drilling sweeps, throws, and basic holds/wrestling.

  5. #14285
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Southeast (Kentucky)
    Posts
    173
    Absolutely agree!

  6. #14286
    The best combination of the senior guys to work with is: Mullins, Grooms and Nance.

    Mullins does the best job of communicating the kung-fu basics. His students on average do the best kicks, stances and forms.

    Grooms does his internal entirely different than what you see in Denver, Kentucky or Texas. When he explains why to do something a particular way he does it with straight forward physics and not a bunch of chi mumbo jumbo.

    Nance has an uncanny grasp of fighting skills. It doesn't seem to matter the range or the method, he effortlessly destroys you. If you want to understand how to fight - he is the guy.

    I would be very happy if my kung fu looked like Mullins, my Tai Chi looked like Grooms and I could fight like Nance.

  7. #14287

    Hmm

    Guess thats why they work together. Like three sides to triangle.... like the tip of an arrow pointing the way...
    Last edited by tattooedmonk; 05-09-2012 at 07:05 AM.

  8. #14288
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie View Post
    But anyways, I do love the art as I practice it. I don't really agree with the way that many other people practice it, as if one interpretation of movements were the ONLY correct interpretation. There are tons of sweeps and throws in the art that others--who either cannot sweep, throw, or are terrified of going to the ground--transform into "pluck his jabbing arm out of the air and break" techniques, or else travesty as "kicks."

    The art has to work for you, and it certainly can. For the past couple of years I've told every student--practice the hell out of the techniques, ippons [slightly modified], and chin-na. The art will make sense after that. Love/hate SD, the basic curriculum is very strong if you teach it right with plenty of contact and drilling sweeps, throws, and basic holds/wrestling.
    I like the way you think.

  9. #14289
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Permanent state of Denial
    Posts
    2,272

    Interesting video...

    This is definitely parallel to our Lian Wu Zhang (2nd China Hand).

    Now, the performance style is less linear than ours is, but the form is move for move the same for the first couple of lines. There are some variations in the motions (we do a 360 smash where he simply rotates in the first line), and some of the takedowns are varied somewhat. We have more elbows combined with sweeps, where they really push downward to assist the sweep. Also, where he does a little hibbidy-hop motion when reversing directions, we have the running front sweep and the airborne transition to a backsweep. But the form is there in its essence and sequence.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXuDOi65zR4

    I've noticed in many Lian Wu Zhang performances a lot of tiger palm strikes, and that's probably why SD ended up lumping them into the Tiger style. Still, the China Hands are certainly NOT tiger forms. Though Jeet Quan (Jie Chien) is a Jingwoo form, I'm waiting on some more background info from some Lian Wu Zhang practitioners concerning the origins of the form. I wonder if the two are even linked at all. Some call Lian Wu Zhang "6 Harmonies Palm."

    You can see the likeness a little more clearly here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oswrw7kICC8
    Last edited by Shaolin Wookie; 05-09-2012 at 07:53 PM.

  10. #14290
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie View Post
    This is definitely parallel to our Lian Wu Zhang (2nd China Hand).

    Now, the performance style is less linear than ours is, but the form is move for move the same for the first couple of lines. There are some variations in the motions (we do a 360 smash where he simply rotates in the first line), and some of the takedowns are varied somewhat. We have more elbows combined with sweeps, where they really push downward to assist the sweep. Also, where he does a little hibbidy-hop motion when reversing directions, we have the running front sweep and the airborne transition to a backsweep. But the form is there in its essence and sequence.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXuDOi65zR4

    I've noticed in many Lian Wu Zhang performances a lot of tiger palm strikes, and that's probably why SD ended up lumping them into the Tiger style. Still, the China Hands are certainly NOT tiger forms. Though Jeet Quan (Jie Chien) is a Jingwoo form, I'm waiting on some more background info from some Lian Wu Zhang practitioners concerning the origins of the form. I wonder if the two are even linked at all. Some call Lian Wu Zhang "6 Harmonies Palm."

    You can see the likeness a little more clearly here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oswrw7kICC8
    I can see some similarities- in the beginning. Some of it is quite a stretch. I have no elbows with the sweeps in this form when I teach it. I am not sure what you are referring to.
    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.)

  11. #14291
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Permanent state of Denial
    Posts
    2,272
    Quote Originally Posted by themeecer View Post
    I can see some similarities- in the beginning. Some of it is quite a stretch. I have no elbows with the sweeps in this form when I teach it. I am not sure what you are referring to.
    LOL....there's a difference between Atlanta and elsewhere.

    Our form follows this pattern. The "stretch" that I see in likening the two is really a matter of slightly different techniques, but the same in spirit.

    as for elbows.....After the opening sequence and the first right-hand palm strike, we have a kind of circular pulling motion which lands in a horse stance. We then backsweep from the horse stance and elbow, whereas this guy pushes his hand towards the ground.

    We also elbow on the backsweep when the form changes directions. We pull into cat stances w/ tiger claws (both hands), then snap kick. We then take a running step forward to frontsweep, launch into a jump (which feels like a double front snap kick), but then pulls into a backsweep. We throw the elbow as we backsweep, spotting the right fist with the left palm.

    I suppose it's impossible to compare forms if you and I do them completely differently. LOL....I've had the pleasure to train with SD guys from different states, and I've rarely seen any perfect equivalence. All I know is that Atlanta's version matches this one pretty closely.
    Last edited by Shaolin Wookie; 05-09-2012 at 08:30 PM.

  12. #14292
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga US
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie View Post
    This is definitely parallel to our Lian Wu Zhang (2nd China Hand).

    Now, the performance style is less linear than ours is, but the form is move for move the same for the first couple of lines. There are some variations in the motions (we do a 360 smash where he simply rotates in the first line), and some of the takedowns are varied somewhat. We have more elbows combined with sweeps, where they really push downward to assist the sweep. Also, where he does a little hibbidy-hop motion when reversing directions, we have the running front sweep and the airborne transition to a backsweep. But the form is there in its essence and sequence.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXuDOi65zR4
    It's close in flavor. I'll stop there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie View Post
    I've noticed in many Lian Wu Zhang performances a lot of tiger palm strikes, and that's probably why SD ended up lumping them into the Tiger style. Still, the China Hands are certainly NOT tiger forms. Though Jeet Quan (Jie Chien) is a Jingwoo form, I'm waiting on some more background info from some Lian Wu Zhang practitioners concerning the origins of the form. I wonder if the two are even linked at all. Some call Lian Wu Zhang "6 Harmonies Palm."

    You can see the likeness a little more clearly here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oswrw7kICC8
    Not so much in my experience. Six Harmonies is Six Harmonies. There's not going to be a name swap, which carries technical descriptions of what a thing is, between 5 Continuous Palm & 6 Harmonies Palm. That's not going to work that way.

    This is Jeet Kuen (Jie Quan). It's a bit wu-shu-y in its performance, but I think the Malaysia Chin Wu is wushu leaning.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51Vw4d4pw-E
    Message: Due to the ongoing Recession, God has decided the light at the end of the tunnel will be shut off due to power costs. That is all.

  13. #14293
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Permanent state of Denial
    Posts
    2,272
    Quote Originally Posted by sean_stonehart View Post
    It's close in flavor. I'll stop there.

    LOL...and I should, too. What I was getting at is that the forms teach the same techniques. I'm not a "God's-in-the-form-itself" kind of guy. The techniques are exactly parallel. A series of sweeps in nearly the same sequence, with a few takedowns.

    Haven't gotten much feedback from practitioners on the origins of the form, however. Jingwoo practitioners just keep telling me that Jeet Kuen originated (I'd have to find my notes to find the guys name) in Jingwoo before WWII, but Lian Wu Zhang guys don't know much beyond who practised the form (Su Ke Gang, etc.). There's a lot of material in SD that was very popular in Taiwan.'

    Not that it means much. I'm sure Coke is popular there, too.
    Last edited by Shaolin Wookie; 05-10-2012 at 05:32 AM.

  14. #14294
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga US
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie View Post
    LOL...and I should, too. What I was getting at is that the forms teach the same techniques. I'm not a "God's-in-the-form-itself" kind of guy. The techniques are exactly parallel. A series of sweeps in nearly the same sequence, with a few takedowns.
    Understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie View Post
    Haven't gotten much feedback from practitioners on the origins of the form, however. Jingwoo practitioners just keep telling me that Jeet Kuen originated (I'd have to find my notes to find the guys name) in Jingwoo before WWII, but Lian Wu Zhang guys don't know much beyond who practised the form (Su Ke Gang, etc.). There's a lot of material in SD that was very popular in Taiwan.'
    PM...

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie View Post
    Not that it means much. I'm sure Coke is popular there, too.
    I think Taiwan's a Pepsi place & the PRC is a Coke place. That's crux of the problem right there.

    One side screams "Less Filling!" and the other screams "Tastes Great!" ...
    Message: Due to the ongoing Recession, God has decided the light at the end of the tunnel will be shut off due to power costs. That is all.

  15. #14295
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    376
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie View Post
    This is good advice in general. I think one of the main issues is that people have preconceived notions of what asian martial arts should be like. Many students want to kowtow to received knowledge (a bit like colleges in that way), and they want an intellectual brandname/heritage. There should be a patrilineal line of descent, certain customs/rituals, etc.

    I've always been a rationalist with a healthy skeptical streak, so I questioned the lineage pretty ****ed quickly. I think most people do, but it's like anything else. Most people at the schools don't really care, and they get defensive because they do not know anything more than what they've been told by senior guys. They therefore don't want to question it when pressed to do so, and they soon become set in their opinions--everyone else must be wrong.

    People who get down on teh history neglect the art because they lose confidence in it. I've been around the MA block, so to speak, and I can make the chin-na work standing or on the ground, I can throw, sweep, etc. pretty well, and I can hit hard. My teacher taught these well, but I lost confidence in the techniques a couple of years in (though never losing confidence in the teacher). I can make this art work, but there was a time a couple of years ago where I lost confidence in the art b/c of the retarded advertising campaign. I wanted to feel proud about the art, but it's hard to do that when you disagree about history, etc. We do Jiang style bagua, Cheng Man Ching's modified Tai Chi 64 (originated in Taiwan), etc. When you do the research and correctly identify things for research/background purposes, you just want to be able to talk freely about it. Nowadays, I do, come hell or highwater, raised eyebrows or rolling eyes.

    Anyways, I've been putting together a little online resource for the "alternative" history of SD---from Chung Yen Shaolin (Central Plains Wushu) on. It talks about the many different teachers who taught there, GM Ie's opium habit/rehab (his buddies got him back into training to help him kick the habit), and the basic structure of Chung Yen. It also provides background info (Jiang/Cheng Man Ching, Jie Chien [from Jing Woo], Lian Wu Zhang [Jing Woo, too]) for many of the forms. It's not derogatory or "whistleblower" in nature, and I certainly do not have all the information that exists. It's what I've gotten from 4 years of research. So far, it's pretty respectful in all ways, as I see it. It just condenses what we know is true, and leaves out the mythical stuff that's on every SD website.

    As a researcher, essayist, and college professor, I hope it'll help a discussion get started about the more practical origins of SD's curriculum. Maybe it'll help those interested in a practical history of what they're doing. I've never been a fan of dogmas.

    What's the address to your site?

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
  •