One should know what he is doing. That is why lineage is important. Martial arts history isn't something to be disreguarded.
Unlock IS-Dfr. Merge all S-D threads together so it clears 1000 posts!
Unlock IS-Dfr. Let all the S-D threads stand independently.
Keep IS-Dfr locked down. All IS-Dfr posters deserved to be punished.
Delete them all. Let Yama sort them out.
One should know what he is doing. That is why lineage is important. Martial arts history isn't something to be disreguarded.
You're not going to find the history of martial arts in the oral history.
You're not going to find the history of martial arts in the written history.
You're not going to find the history of martial arts by ad hominem attacks.
CMA/Kun Tao/Karate, etc., is highly political and many stories have been made up for political benefit.
Do you analyze DNA by asking the human carrying it? Do you determine the father of a child by asking the possibly cheating wife? No, you do not ...
End of story.
"neil", there is plenty of credible martial arts research. There is even archeology involved.
The doctors were writing about hypertrichosis. They just used those pictures as examples of people with the disease. Even if they got the names of all them wrong it wouldn't discredit their research. The research was about the disease, not the people in the pictures.
"neil", respectable martial arts researchers don't lie and archeology is a science. That statement of yours is absurd.Originally Posted by lunghushan
One more, then I'll stop. If you don't get this, then you don't get anything.
What is a 'respectable' martial artist? What is a 'respectable' martial arts teacher? If you know anything about Chinese culture, lying or bending the truth is considered very acceptable, much less worse than many other crimes, especially if you are trying to make money or save face.
As for archaeology being a science, it is entirely based upon people's interpretation of evidence according to their underlying hypotheses and premises. It isn't a science with reproducible results like physics, it's a soft science more akin to psychology.
Anyway, this is an extreme waste of time. If you like wasting your time then continue, but I won't.
Here's one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m203c8l6B7w
KC, the site you posted seems to be an online course in Europe.....the contact email they list is A.J.Lock@massey.ac.nz. maybe they can verify where their picture came from. I too agree there are differences in the nose between the pictures, even the one from Hiang's site.....I will believe GMS over his brother anytime....I have studied under both. This debate is nothing new..it's been going on for the 30 plus years that I've been in the system. NOBODY HAS YET TO PROVE OR DISPROVE ANYTHING. Like KC I have study other MA...worked out with people from a wide variety styles and OBSERVED a lot of CMA and others down through the years and I'm very proud and thankful of what GSM has brought to us. TWS there's nothing wrong with asking questions or questioning your style.....we all have done that and once again I'm sorry for your experience with SD....but DUDE you have issues.
It doesn't contradict its story as SD's tale has different time frame.
What about the possibility that a tale about the Five Elders had others jump on the band wagon too to add credibility to their style? There are other MA sites not associated with SD that use the list of styles taught at the different temple locations that were cut and pasted from SD sites. That doesn't add any proof that just because others have on their web site too, it is correct.
Somewhere in this thread a poster who I will not name stated that Chen family Tai CHi can trace their roots back several generations. I have been to Chen village and seen a stele with their lineage. There were several gaps with ..... where names should have been but where missing. Once it was three generations in a row missing in the lineage. This doesn't make Chen family style any less a real MA or that it in any way distract from its lineage but to show even Chen has gaps. There is a nearby village that teaches a somewhat similar style of MA that may be a parrallel style though they claim it as the original but not as well known. Seems as if it has Zhao something in its name.
VOTE FOR PEDRO '08
Ever notice how virtually everyone agrees that 95% of all traditional schools are crap, but NOBODY ever admits to being in that 5%? Don't judge... your skill may suck also...
Quote from SevenStar
Just call me the Shaolin Do Wet Blanket. Gene Ching
Well I was really hoping someone with access to face recognition software would come along because that would cut through the hair and measure the relationship between between points on the face.
The 2 pics I put side by side look very similar but when you look close to the distance from lower lip to chin and width of nose it becomes questionable. Obviously they look very much alike but are they one in the same?
Another question would by why didn't he just shave every day? Or at least shave his head like the rest of the monks?
Ok, I tried polarizing, solarizing, drawing lines from inside of eyes to tip of nose, etc. but haven't come up with anythoing definitive.
I thought about trying to edit out some of the hair and simplify the pics but it's difficult.
So here are 3 pics put side by side. Li Baoshu, Hiang's Su Kong, Sin's Su Kong. I think they're similar enough to say they are the same person but that's personal perception, not fact.
Last edited by Yao Sing; 08-26-2006 at 08:15 AM.
I'll cast my vote in the "Lineage is NOT important" ballot box. Maybe that's just because the style I practice is a relatively recent fusion of two older styles. I still have fun practicing and I'm fairly confident I could handle myself decently in a fight, though that's not my primary concern.
"Prepare your mind..." "For a mind explosion!"
-The Human Giant, Illusionators
Wow. I don't know a WHOLE LOT about this debate, but I take it that Hiang and Sin are two different SD masters? You know, I'd go so far as to say that Hiang's Su Kong pic looks less like Sin's Su Kong than Li Baoshu. Wait, let me figure out what I just wrote... ok, basically Li Baoshu looks more similar to Sin's Su Kong than does Hiang's Su Kong. So either they're all the same person, one of them is a different person, or we just have three different pictures of hairy asian dudes.
Did I just hear a can opening? Wait a minute, where did all these worms come from?
"Prepare your mind..." "For a mind explosion!"
-The Human Giant, Illusionators
Another question would by why didn't he just shave every day? Or at least shave his head like the rest of the monks?[/QUOTE]
I think that Gene also raised the question of shaving. That would be quite a job to do and I am not sure what quality razor you could find then. But in the SD story, he was not a monk, that he wanted to be known as for something other than his hair so he learned all the forms.
VOTE FOR PEDRO '08
Ever notice how virtually everyone agrees that 95% of all traditional schools are crap, but NOBODY ever admits to being in that 5%? Don't judge... your skill may suck also...
Quote from SevenStar
Just call me the Shaolin Do Wet Blanket. Gene Ching
Absolutely amazing. I have stayed out of this latest line of debate because as one person stated, it has been argued to death. Something like 30 years worth. Now it has come to the point that the "anti-SD experts" are challenging the lectures of some professor far removed and the research of some fellow simply doing his job. Now we need to bring in face recognition technology to prove or disprove something that now one that actually studying SD cares about.
I find it funny that no one that I have trained or trained with over 30 some odd years, and I am talking numbers into the thousands, has ever cared a bit about any topic that is discussed here. Its generally a non issue. They hear the history, see the photos and thats about it. They are more concerned with learning and training the material offers.
It seems only those heII bent on proving that SD is not a good martial art even cares. And even if they do prove it, no one except them will care. Of course, they will be able to wear a big shlt eating grin and proudly claim "I brought down SD on an internet forum!!!". Then what? Will you try to get a 5 minute spot on Dateline to expose the shocking truth? Will you get some sort of twisted thrill knowing that you have caused me to stop training after 30 years because even though on most days I could kick you a$$, the history wasn't factual? I just don't get it.
This whole lineage thing, in my opinion, is silly. It doesn't prove a thing. Does it mean that everyone that studies from a pure, great lineage will be great? Or that everyone that studies from a crappy one will suck?
Watching a form on video and trying to slam it is silly too because unless you are doing it yourself, you can't tell what the form is like. You can't tell is it is being done exactly as was taught because everyone will adapt it to their own limitations.
Ok, I am off my soap box....have at it.
"Pain heals, chicks dig scars..Glory lasts forever"......