Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Judge Pen]

anyone? comments?

I keep meaning to put some videos up, but never seem to get around to it. I did pull some old videos out and started going through them, so it's a start.

[wenshu]

Short forms are excellent. Excellent cardio with all the fundamental technique that anyone would ever need. The case can be made that it doesn't teach transitional movement, but I don't think the are looking very hard. Whether these forms are a distilled version of the 108 lohan or they sprang out of Sin The's mind and imagination, it is good material and material I plan on teaching my own children to introduce them to the basics of the art.

So lets see it.

I can't speak for any of the other detractors but that's all I've really been asking, is that you guys back up your claims about this core of ShaolinDo that somehow justifies all of the other obvious nonsense. If I see something that demonstrates a distinctive unity of style that isn't obvious seminar tai chi or learned from a book then I'll gladly shut the **** up. SHeeeit, maybe I'll even go take a class at a CSC.

I can already tell you what is going to happen. We'll get several pages of a plagiarized dissertation on the nature of Aristotelian Correspondence and then the ShaolinDo peanut gallery will start whining about the lack of decorum while simultaneously making veiled threats of physical violence and the basic request will remain conveniently unaddressed.

[Judge Pen]

I've known a couple of individuals (who started in sd long before I) to mention that the way the "Lo Han" techniques are currently taught is quite different from the days when GMT taught with his brother. For one, the modern set is apparently much more "linear". Do any of you have any knowledge of this?

I began in 2000 at a "west coast" school and have only ever seen the Lo Hans performed one way. I ask because, as JP and others have astutely pointed out, they seem to form the true foundation for everything else in sd. If there was an original set taught to EML's generation that differs from the current one, it would be interesting to know whether it was something more complete, and possibly truly unique to sd and the original Chung Yen.

That would be interesting to see. The old KET tapes (1982 or so) showed "variations" of the sparring techniques, but I don't recall there being a huge variation in the short form. I remember when I started in 1989 I learned the short form slightly different than the way Master Garry and his sons taught. When I asked his oldest son about it, he said "that's the way that it used to be taught, but now it's taugt differently." I don't know if that is a change in the entire system or just from my first teacher to Master Garry. Honestly though, the differences were not as dramatic as you described.

There were some forms, like our third brown cranes that Master Garry changed "to do them like they used to be done when they were first taught." According to him, Elder Master Leonard took some techniques out (though whether that was true or why that happened were not clear to me).

The best way to know how the material was first done is if it was ever videoed before these alleged changes. That would be interesting to compare.

[Judge Pen]

So lets see it.

I can't speak for any of the other detractors but that's all I've really been asking, is that you guys back up your claims about this core of ShaolinDo that somehow justifies all of the other obvious nonsense. If I see something that demonstrates a distinctive unity of style that isn't obvious seminar tai chi or learned from a book then I'll gladly shut the **** up. SHeeeit, maybe I'll even go take a class at a CSC.

I can already tell you what is going to happen. We'll get several pages of a plagiarized dissertation on the nature of Aristotelian Correspondence and then the ShaolinDo peanut gallery will start whining about the lack of decorum while simultaneously making veiled threats of physical violence and the basic request will remain conveniently unaddressed.

So what are you asking? To see this material?

[kwaichang]

I 1st learned the 1-30 in 1981 they were taught slower and look the same as now , but they diod not have a bow stance after each one . a good training drill is to call #s say 8, 16 or 3 and 21 mix emup or do them 30-1.

[Syn7]

If I may speak for him, Sean isn't fighting "for" SD. He used to train in SD and though he still respects his teacher and many of his peers, he has no love for Sin The or SD. I'm not really training anymore either. I'm calling things the way I see it, but my persepctive includes 20 years of training in SD and a detest for the lies and tall tales that have been told and the delusions that some in SD still maintain.

Meh, either way, Sean seems like a chill guy and doesn't seem to take criticism from people he doesn't know to the heart the way others on here have.

And yeah, I like your ability to separate yourself from the bullshit. Mos def an asset for somebody who spends time on the ugly side of the bar.

Are you a criminal defense attorney? litigator? Civil law? what?

[Syn7]

This isn't a rodeo; its a merry-go-round. If you want to stop going in circles, you just get off the ride. I had been off this forum for a long time until Sin The's deposition.

Either way, I decide when I'm done. All anyone can do about it is not respond.

I like circles. They amuse me. And it's not like I'm here for any sort of higher purpose. It's just something to do in between other tasks that only leave small windows that don't allow me to do something else more involved. I'm a multi tasker like that. Doing one thing at a time is actually hard for me. I'm the guy that watches a movie, writes code or is building something, and popping in and out of conversations while cooking dinner. It's a gift and a curse. It's awesome for getting stuff done, but sucks when it comes time to go to sleep without distractions. And quite often people don't feel I am giving them my full attention and feel insulted.

[sean_stonehart]

still waiting for your "proof" that you have independent documentation of HSK's lineage's 5 Animal Form being taught in other systems; but let me guess - it's in the same holding pattern as those videos you just can't put up at this point, right?

luv & smoochies

DB

*ouch* ...

[Shaolin Wookie]

anyone? comments?

My understanding is probably more akin to Master Reid (though mine is much more shallow) than Master Grooms (who does his slightly different). But when I perform single whip, I do it differently than Master Reid (more as a throw than a strike). He separates form from function because he can turn every motion into 30 applications, but sometimes I like to stress the spirit of a function over the form. Just personal differences--everyone's got 'em.

I did take CMC's treatises to heart---especially with wrist movements. I also do not do the form super-slow, but more at the speed of CMC. His short form was intended to be a "short" form, after all.

I'll see if I can't get a section up sometime soon. But I'm a pretty busy guy, and it'll be tough to get my wife to videotape me.

[tattooedmonk]

Did someone bring a chicken in here!? Cuz all I hear is clucking!

[Shaolin Wookie]

I 1st learned the 1-30 in 1981 they were taught slower and look the same as now , but they diod not have a bow stance after each one . a good training drill is to call #s say 8, 16 or 3 and 21 mix emup or do them 30-1.

So, you're saying that they didn't have the ready stance, with one hand extended in a horizontal-fist punch?


So, did they all start from a natural stance, then?

If so, I can see why they may have developed into stationary drills, since the natural stance to bow stance transition is difficult for many green belts, even.

[tattooedmonk]

My understanding is probably more akin to Master Reid (though mine is much more shallow as of yet) than Master Grooms (who does his slightly different). But when I perform single whip, I do it differently than Master Reid (more as a throw than a strike). He separates form from function because he can turn every motion into 30 applications, but sometimes I like to stress the spirit of a function over the form. Just personal differences--everyone's got 'em.

I did take CMC's treatises to heart---especially with wrist movements. I also do not do the form super-slow, but more at the speed of CMC. His short form was intended to be a "short" form, after all.

I'll see if I can't get a section up sometime soon. But I'm a pretty busy guy, and it'll be tough to get my wife to videotape me.

Hey guys, I am going to put some up on my web page soon... Because I am learning as I am building the site , somethings take longer and are more involved . It might take me a bit, Especially for a new programmer.

[tattooedmonk]

So, you're saying that they didn't have the ready stance, with one hand extended in a horizontal-fist punch?


So, did they all start from a natural stance, then?

If so, I can see why they may have developed into stationary drills, since the natural stance to bow stance transition is difficult for many green belts, even.

most people don't apply the proper mechanics involved to achieve desired results....

[Judge Pen]

Meh, either way, Sean seems like a chill guy and doesn't seem to take criticism from people he doesn't know to the heart the way others on here have.

And yeah, I like your ability to separate yourself from the bullshit. Mos def an asset for somebody who spends time on the ugly side of the bar.

Are you a criminal defense attorney? litigator? Civil law? what?

Civil litigation/tort defense/business litigation. Also some zoning/municipal litigation.

[hskwarrior]

still waiting for your "proof" that you have independent documentation of HSK's lineage's 5 Animal Form being taught in other systems; but let me guess - it's in the same holding pattern as those videos you just can't put up at this point, right?

me toooooo