Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Syn7]

You misunderstood. I'm asking for your reference.

Most internal Tong docs are not to be published outside of the org. I dunno about HSK's tong, but it's usually a rule of thumb. They have public and private papers. Private papers are to stay private.

[kwaichang]

Too late tonight Look tomorrow OK , no make that the 27th any way I have morereferences and will pos`t them
Syn just STFU, you are boring and every one is laughing at you. You dont even understand why I used the word Convoluted . Or any "big" words like occlude , and others. Go change your diaper, . KC

[Empty_Cup]

do the work and discover some references. I did.

If you have done the research as you say and expect to be taken seriously, why would you hide your references?

[Syn7]

So which is it? Am I an egotistical well spoken guy or a really dumb guy who doesn't understand big words?

I'm not very well spoken, actually. Just head and shoulders above you.

Well then, I guess I've been told.






Anywhoo, it would be cool if somebody took the time to line up SKT's timeline in point form beside a genral timeline of Chinese and martial history. Something to really point out the obvious discrepancies.

[hskwarrior]

if you have done the research as you say and expect to be taken seriously, why would you hide your references?

im in the process of completing my book. The clf world does have some shady people in it too. I have my reasons. Don't believe a word i say, but the others know whether i know a thing or two.

[Empty_Cup]

im in the process of completing my book. The clf world does have some shady people in it too. I have my reasons. Don't believe a word i say, but the others know whether i know a thing or two.

Fair enough. I would expect you to have some public references, though.

To me at least, your historical statements won't carry much weight based solely on your word. I have the same attitude towards the information TTM is collecting.

[hskwarrior]

fair enough. I would expect you to have some public references, though.

the stuff related to my book and history will be in the bibliography.

Man, i know. Which is why there is a bibliography

LIKE I SAID. there's shady people in CLF too and some have actually used what i said in relation to my lineage was taken and applied to theirs. filled with the BS

[Kellen Bassette]

got anything else? I'M NOT CONVINCED BY THIS

As to the circus stuff...this is an excerpt from "Training Methods of 72 Arts of Shaolin" -1934. It doesn't expressly mention "circuses" but I think it could be implied, by "roaming acrobats." I suppose it's reasonable to believe that martial artists performed their kung fu/acrobatics in circuses or troupes; I'm sure not all were teachers or military men.

Here's the excerpt.

The exercise, "Piercing the Curtain" is the "soft" GONG FU, it trains the internal energy and belongs to the section "Skill of Light Body" (QING SHEN GONG). The purport of it lies in the ability to make horizontal leaps like a swallow's flight. We often see performances of roaming acrobats who show leaps through rings with daggers or burning torches on the ring perimeter. That is just a demonstration of that kind of GONG FU. The audience see: one leap and an acrobat already passed through the ring with daggers or burning torches on the edges. It seems to be simple and easy. Nobody thinks about the fact to achieve it, one has to pass through hard and difficult training, much more difficult than in many other kinds of GONG FU.



I see the argument on here several times about SD not having the look/flavor of CMA. Someone mentioned that it's because hadn't adopted a modern "Wushu" feel to it, so it doesn't have the "prettiness" of some Kung Fu styles.

I don't want to come off as style bashing, or disrespecting anyone's art, that's not my way or intention; and I don't know much about SD other than what I read here and have seen from several Youtube videos, but the fact that it doesn't look like CMA, in my opinion, has nothing to do with modern Wushu or lack of flowery movements, or anything of that nature.

Every video I have seen of SD, be it by a skilled or sloppy performer, has the look/flavor of some sort of Kempo/Karate practitioner attempting a Chinese form. That in itself isn't a bad thing, there's nothing wrong with Kempo or Karate, but it never has the look of CMAs, because CMAs simply move differently than other systems. Some of the videos I have seen are very sloppy, some have good stances and technique; but none have the feel of CMAs.

I know exactly what it looks like when a Karate based martial artist attempts Chinese style forms. I started my MA training in Karate; and as a teenager, I attempted to create my own Kung Fu forms, based on my Karate experience and what I had seen from Kung Fu. I could do Chinese style moves all day and never have the feel/look of CMA.

I never figured out why until I began studying CMAs. It took a while for me to learn, at first, because I thought I could build off my Karate base. It was impossible. I had to completely empty my cup and separate the arts to learn Kung Fu properly. It wasn't a matter of better or worse, it's different fundamentals, different mechanics, mostly a completely different method of linking techniques between Chinese, Okinawan, Japanese, Indo-Chinese, or "what have you" styles.

Kempo/Karate does not link movements in the manner of CMAs. If your base is Karate you cannot learn to link in a Chinese style until you start from scratch with a CMAs foundation. It has nothing to do with modern Wushu or pretty techniques.

Northern styles look/move different than Southern styles, yes. Southern styles are more closely related to Karate than Northern styles; also true. But Southern systems still have a Chinese look/feel brought on not only by their techs, but the way they link the movements/energies.

Wing Chun doesn't look like Hung Gar, Doesn't look like SPM, doesn't look like CLF, doesn't look like Shaolin, doesn't look like Eagle Claw, doesn't look like NPM, ect....All these arts have their own flavor, but are all obviously Chinese arts, because they utilize linkage of moves/energies in a Chinese fashion, not in an Okinawan, Japanese or Indonesian fashion.

So in that regard, SKT is probably correct in calling himself a "Karate" club of sorts, though certainly not traditional Okinawan...

Not meaning to pass judgement or disrespect at all...just my 2 cents for what it's worth, but whenever I see a Chinese form attempted by someone who does not have a CMAs base, I immediately recognizance and understand why, because I tried it myself, as a teenager, before I began my TCMAs studies.

[hskwarrior]

well, that wouldn't apply to my lineage. from the time it was established till 1949 the lineage was heavily involved with fighting in revolution after revolution and training for this. circus stuff had no use to our people.

As to the circus stuff...this is an excerpt from "Training Methods of 72 Arts of Shaolin" -1934. It doesn't expressly mention "circuses" but I think it could be implied, by "roaming acrobats." I suppose it's reasonable to believe that martial artists performed their kung fu/acrobatics in circuses or troupes; I'm sure not all were teachers or military men.

i aware of little acrobatic groups, but circus's? like ringling bro's?

We often see performances of roaming acrobats who show leaps through rings with daggers or burning torches on the ring perimeter. That is just a demonstration of that kind of GONG FU.

this isn't talking about martial arts when he said GONG FU.....he just means SKILL. not martial arts.

[Kellen Bassette]

i aware of little acrobatic groups, but circus's? like ringling bro's?

I wouldn't know, just sharing that one reference I remembered...I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as some of the other folks here about Chinese culture/history...was always more interested in combat, really just starting to learn the rest...it wouldn't surprise me though, if there were small circuses...I don't know if like in the western sense, but there must have been carnivals and small acts...just what little I had to add, FWIW.

[Syn7]

As to the circus stuff...this is an excerpt from "Training Methods of 72 Arts of Shaolin" -1934. It doesn't expressly mention "circuses" but I think it could be implied, by "roaming acrobats." I suppose it's reasonable to believe that martial artists performed their kung fu/acrobatics in circuses or troupes; I'm sure not all were teachers or military men.

Here's the excerpt.

The exercise, "Piercing the Curtain" is the "soft" GONG FU, it trains the internal energy and belongs to the section "Skill of Light Body" (QING SHEN GONG). The purport of it lies in the ability to make horizontal leaps like a swallow's flight. We often see performances of roaming acrobats who show leaps through rings with daggers or burning torches on the ring perimeter. That is just a demonstration of that kind of GONG FU. The audience see: one leap and an acrobat already passed through the ring with daggers or burning torches on the edges. It seems to be simple and easy. Nobody thinks about the fact to achieve it, one has to pass through hard and difficult training, much more difficult than in many other kinds of GONG FU.



I see the argument on here several times about SD not having the look/flavor of CMA. Someone mentioned that it's because hadn't adopted a modern "Wushu" feel to it, so it doesn't have the "prettiness" of some Kung Fu styles.

I don't want to come off as style bashing, or disrespecting anyone's art, that's not my way or intention; and I don't know much about SD other than what I read here and have seen from several Youtube videos, but the fact that it doesn't look like CMA, in my opinion, has nothing to do with modern Wushu or lack of flowery movements, or anything of that nature.

Every video I have seen of SD, be it by a skilled or sloppy performer, has the look/flavor of some sort of Kempo/Karate practitioner attempting a Chinese form. That in itself isn't a bad thing, there's nothing wrong with Kempo or Karate, but it never has the look of CMAs, because CMAs simply move differently than other systems. Some of the videos I have seen are very sloppy, some have good stances and technique; but none have the feel of CMAs.

I know exactly what it looks like when a Karate based martial artist attempts Chinese style forms. I started my MA training in Karate; and as a teenager, I attempted to create my own Kung Fu forms, based on my Karate experience and what I had seen from Kung Fu. I could do Chinese style moves all day and never have the feel/look of CMA.

I never figured out why until I began studying CMAs. It took a while for me to learn, at first, because I thought I could build off my Karate base. It was impossible. I had to completely empty my cup and separate the arts to learn Kung Fu properly. It wasn't a matter of better or worse, it's different fundamentals, different mechanics, mostly a completely different method of linking techniques between Chinese, Okinawan, Japanese, Indo-Chinese, or "what have you" styles.

Kempo/Karate does not link movements in the manner of CMAs. If your base is Karate you cannot learn to link in a Chinese style until you start from scratch with a CMAs foundation. It has nothing to do with modern Wushu or pretty techniques.

Northern styles look/move different than Southern styles, yes. Southern styles are more closely related to Karate than Northern styles; also true. But Southern systems still have a Chinese look/feel brought on not only by their techs, but the way they link the movements/energies.

Wing Chun doesn't look like Hung Gar, Doesn't look like SPM, doesn't look like CLF, doesn't look like Shaolin, doesn't look like Eagle Claw, doesn't look like NPM, ect....All these arts have their own flavor, but are all obviously Chinese arts, because they utilize linkage of moves/energies in a Chinese fashion, not in an Okinawan, Japanese or Indonesian fashion.

So in that regard, SKT is probably correct in calling himself a "Karate" club of sorts, though certainly not traditional Okinawan...

Not meaning to pass judgement or disrespect at all...just my 2 cents for what it's worth, but whenever I see a Chinese form attempted by someone who does not have a CMAs base, I immediately recognizance and understand why, because I tried it myself, as a teenager, before I began my TCMAs studies.

CMA has a long history of hiding out with artists of all kinds. There is the whole Chinese opera thing during the persecution. I have no doubt that martial artists would make money as acrobats or some sort of showmen. Their physical prowess can tranfer over to many other skills. Many of which you would find at a circus or some sort of travelling freak show. And in all honesty, that would be a natural transition for a hairy monk. He would have been treated by an outcast by many, and would probably find solace in travelling with people who have similar social issues.

I don't doubt that a hairy guy that can do kung fu ever existed. But I have no reason to believe any of these extraordinary claims that are all over CMA and 99.9% bullshit.

I mean, nobody in my Bak Mei class actually spends any time wondering if a white eyebrowed traitor really did exist and do all the stuff that he is said to have done. It's just kind of silly. For movies and the kids. Not that I don't enjoy a good Gordon Liu flick. Executioners from Shaolin was a good movie, but it was just a movie. Anyone with these grasshopper delusions are straight up LARPers.

[Kellen Bassette]

CMA has a long history of hiding out with artists of all kinds. There is the whole Chinese opera thing during the persecution. I have no doubt that martial artists would make money as acrobats or some sort of showmen. Their physical prowess can tranfer over to many other skills. Many of which you would find at a circus or some sort of travelling freak show. And in all honesty, that would be a natural transition for a hairy monk. He would have been treated by an outcast by many, and would probably find solace in travelling with people who have similar social issues.

I don't doubt that a hairy guy that can do kung fu ever existed. But I have no reason to believe any of these extraordinary claims that are all over CMA and 99.9% bullshit.

I mean, nobody in my Bak Mei class actually spends any time wondering if a white eyebrowed traitor really did exist and do all the stuff that he is said to have done. It's just kind of silly. For movies and the kids. Not that I don't enjoy a good Gordon Liu flick. Executioners from Shaolin was a good movie, but it was just a movie. Anyone with these grasshopper delusions are straight up LARPers.

Stage performance seems like it would be a logical avenue for a martial artist who wasn't teaching, fighting, in the military, a body guard or whatever...

I tend not to believe any extraordinary/unbelievable claims from any system if they can't present tangible evidence. A good deal of the arts have tall tales and over the top legends in their oral tradition; but the martial material provided should be sufficient to justify its' worth. We shouldn't need legends and myths to sell an art. Just take them for what they are...keep the tradition and train the heart of the system. That's what it's all about to me.

[brucereiter]

"Sin The was born in 1943 in Bandung, Indonesia, to a family of Chinese immigrants. He studied martial arts in the school of Ie Chang Ming, another member of the Chinese community in Bandung. In 1964 he came to the University of Kentucky, where he made the decision to stay in the United States and teach martial arts full-time." That is all it needs to be, and there would be nothing to gripe about.

yep ... ... ...

[brucereiter]

So which is it? Am I an egotistical well spoken guy or a really dumb guy who doesn't understand big words?

I'm not very well spoken, actually. Just head and shoulders above you.

Well then, I guess I've been told.

Anywhoo, it would be cool if somebody took the time to line up SKT's timeline in point form beside a genral timeline of Chinese and martial history. Something to really point out the obvious discrepancies.

below is some of the timeline i have posted before. i have not taken the time to make a document comparing histories but i have done the work myself and found hundreds of claims sin the has made that do not add up with what all other available evidence tells me.

i sound like a broken record and keep referring back to the internal stuff since this is what i have studied and have some knowledge of that is where i will keep my comments. it is my understanding that jiang rong qiao bagua simply was not taught at any shaolin temple in the late 1800's or early 1900's. it just does not make sense that so many other sources would lie about it and sin the would tell the truth. like the "64 rules" of pakua. sin the signed the translation he made of it as if he authored it. he did not. also the hand drawn pictures he hands out with the translations were hand drawings that jiang rong qiao's daughter made for him to use in his book.

if sin the had just clearly said "i have translated and organized this pakua information from xyz. even if he had only read it in a book would be ok with me but unfortunately sin the outright lies and also omits information leaving the student to figure out the truth for them selves ...

what sucks for sin the is it is possible for him to have learned at least some of the internal material he teaches but since he has lied and or misdirected at least most of the students under him how should a person decide what to believe from sin the. he confuses the hell out of me because he does actually seem like a kind and gentle person and he has had some great physical training and probably has some very good fighting skill. but i think he is very full of **** regarding the history he has presented. neither sin the or any person i have spoken to in sd has been able to clarify the discrepancies in the history sin the presents.

for many people the first images of sin the they had are from the book secrets from the temple. the implication is that sin the got that physical condition from doing shaolin martial arts. i understand that he got those muscles from weight lifting and body building. of coarse he did not outright say but the implication was there.
now all of the oldtimers will talk about his body building and special diets etc like it is / was common knowledge.


1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849 su kong tai jin was born in fukien provence
1850 sukong tai jin was found by a shaolin monk and taken into the temple
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875 "su kong tai jin/ ""council""destroy the temple instead of allowing the ching government army / a traitor monk to destroy the temple ??date??"
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880 ie chang ming was born in fukien province. At some point entered the shaolin temple and then followed su kong tai jin into the mountains.
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911 ching dynasty falls, some time after ie chand ming kills ching soldiers and flees to bandung indonesia. (may have left after 1928 since ie is said to have studied with su kong until his death???)
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928 su kong tai jin died in fukien provence mountains
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943 sin kwang the' born in bandung indonesia
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948 hiang kwang the born in bandung indonesia/ sin kwang the' began sandburn training for 6 months
1949
1950 "sin kwang the started to study at ie chang mings school ""central shaolin wushu school"" in bandung"
1951
1952
1953
1954 "sin kwang the studied ""lower school""
1955 "sin kwang the studied ""lower school"" and awarded black belt level 1"
1956 "sin kwang the studied ""middle school""
1957 "sin kwang the studied ""middle school""
1958 "sin kwang the studied ""middle school"" and awarded black belt level 3 /some time around 15 years old sin the meets ""maters wu"" and is introduced to internal."
1959 "sin kwang the studied ""upper school""
1960 "sin kwang the studied ""upper school""
1961 "sin kwang the studied ""upper school""
1962 "sin kwang the studied ""upper school""
1963 "sin kwang the studied ""upper school"" "
1964 sin kwang the awarded black belt level 5. sin kwang the moved to lexington ky to start college. Same year he starts teaching shaolin in lexington.
1965
1966
1967
1968 ie chang ming awarded sin kwang the 10th degree red belt grandmaster/1968 mideast national tournament, bill walace competed.
1969
1970
1971 national karate grand championship sat sept 18 1971 u.k. coliseum
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976 ie chang ming dies in bandung indonesia/some claim he died in 1968. (some say 68 some 76???)
1977
1978 "sin kwang the opens the ""sports center""
1979
1980
1981
1982 sr master gary grooms starts shaolin do at the chinese shaolin center in denver under david and sharon soard.
1983
1984
1985
1986 "sr master gary grooms opens a chinese shaolin center in atlanta the sign read ""shaolin martial arts"" + ""kung fu-tai chi"" grandmaster sin saw the sign and said he teachs shaolin karate."
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994 "?? System is named ""shaolin do"" ?? But may have been reffered to as ""shaolin do"" some time before."
1995 "sin kwang the and james halladay release the book ""shaolin do secrets from the temple""

[hskwarrior]

1875 "su kong tai jin/ ""council""destroy the temple instead of allowing the ching government army / a traitor monk to destroy the temple ??date??"

The only traitor monk was Ma Chut aka Ma Ning Er. he was a student of the Fukien temple that was burned down in or around 1760. there was no other stories of traitor monks in china's history.