Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[MasterKiller]

I posted a translation of it MK, don't you trust me?


http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/foru...postcount=3401

I must have missed that. This thread moves pretty fast.

[Citong Shifu]

Just curious, what does Citon Sifu mean ?? I mean the name not his comments.

yes, Citong is the ancient name for the city of Quanzhou (Fujian Prov.) Citong is my sifu's hometown, as with his sifus', except for Wan Laishen. Also, Citong (Quanzhou) was the original location of the Fujian/fukien Shaolin Temple. We use the name Citong to indicate origin of our style/art. Our tradition is Fujian Shaolin Temple Boxing; Shaolin Quan, Louhan Quan, & Di Shu Quan. We also specialize in Chang Quan, Tong Bei Quan, Ziranmen, Lui He Tang Long Quan, & the Internal arts...

I know there is alot of speculation (PRC) as to where the Fujian or Shaolin Temple was first erected, but through our documentation and my sifu's manuals it was Citong/Quanzhou not Putain, which the PRC claims...

Talk to you guys later.
CS (Citong Shaolin Kung Fu Academy)

[BentMonk]

Bent Monk, Thank you! But, it is I that should commend you on your perseverance and efforts within the martial arts. I just viewed your website, wow! Talk about inspiration... You know, I see martial artist everyday that have nothing holding them back but themselves and laziness, then there's martial artist such as yourself that take full advantage of the benefits that the arts have to offer... Once again, great job!

CS.

Thank you for the kind words. I am just trying to use my love of MA and the benefits that training brought me to help others. I was very fortunate to have found my instructors. Their dedication to their own training, and their knowledge enabled them to realistically adapt forms and techniques to suit my needs. I am indebted to them, and the MDs, PTs, OTs, RNs, and many others who help ensure that studying the arts does nothing but help those I train.

[greencloudtj]

Actualy TJ yes youre right the style resembled Brazilian Jiu Jit su,, gay but effective and after the Greek empire it was perfected by the Romans. You know your Italian ancestors

well you no the romans are very romantic....

[kwaichang]

The company refused to translate the document , no reason given. KC

[tattooedmonk]

..to all the people that doubt that SD is a tradtional art , CMA , or Shaolin ......what makes you think this way??

Going by the definition of what tradition is,( latin word traditio meaning "to hand over" or "pass down"),it is obvious SD has traditions which come from many sources they just are not the ones most commonly followed .

Hell most of the traditions that are in modern schools are adaptations from the original ones.

At least we are not wearing monk robes and shaving are heads ( pretending to me monks) or wearing some queer colored trimmed silk which will get torn and ripped from your body the first time someone gets ahold of it!!!

The forms are Chinese in origin ...this seems obvious...how they are performed in demonstrations does not make them any less effective as a martial art or anyless CMA.

for all of you that think CMA is suppose to be pretty ...get a clue... I know plenty of people who have great form but cannot fight their way out of a paper bag ...which is more useful whehter it is effective or pretty???..if it works in a fight then it is a martial art if it does not, but looks pretty, it is dancing.

Many Styles / systems/ forms have been absorbed into Shaolin and many other non Shaolin schools over the centuries .....so why should SD be any different? Just because Hung gar has absorbed Lau gar forms into their curiculum does it make it any less Hung Gar or any less Shaolin??

...so if you all think that just because the outward appearences, different traditions, and styles/ systems make SD not traditional , not CMA , and not Shaolin then you have a lot to learn and need to be more openminded ....

[Citong Shifu]

..to all the people that doubt that SD is a tradtional art , CMA , or Shaolin ......what makes you think this way??

Going by the definition of what tradition is,( latin word traditio meaning "to hand over" or "pass down"),it is obvious SD has traditions which come from many sources they just are not the ones most commonly followed .

Hell most of the traditions that are in modern schools are adaptations from the original ones.

At least we are not wearing monk robes and shaving are heads ( pretending to me monks) or wearing some queer colored trimmed silk which will get torn and ripped from your body the first time someone gets ahold of it!!!

The forms are Chinese in origin ...this seems obvious...how they are performed in demonstrations does not make them any less effective as a martial art or anyless CMA.

for all of you that think CMA is suppose to be pretty ...get a clue... I know plenty of people who have great form but cannot fight their way out of a paper bag ...which is more useful whehter it is effective or pretty???..if it works in a fight then it is a martial art if it does not, but looks pretty, it is dancing.

Many Styles / systems/ forms have been absorbed into Shaolin and many other non Shaolin schools over the centuries .....so why should SD be any different? Just because Hung gar has absorbed Lau gar forms into their curiculum does it make it any less Hung Gar or any less Shaolin??

...so if you all think that just because the outward appearences, different traditions, and styles/ systems make SD not traditional , not CMA , and not Shaolin then you have a lot to learn and need to be more openminded ....

I just wanted to comment on your statement about pretty forms but cannot fight. - There are people in the martial arts who do not wish to learn the fighting aspects or I should say, study comprehensively the fighting applications of their art. They merely use the arts as a means to stay fit and healthy, while maintaining their athletic abilities for personal or performance interests.... Then you have those who dive deep into the arts and there fighting application. These individuals not only perfect their art (look pretty), but can fight very good as well... I dont think they really care about someone tearing their silk uniform while their whooping someone's @ss, IMHO . On the flip side, I;ve seen others who cant perform their art to any CMA standard, but can open a can of whoop @ss on someone who looked to be a competant fighter and again, the tearing of cloths isn't a factor..

Now, to comment on the statement - "For those who think the CMA are suppost to look pretty". Well if speed, power, precision, flexibilty, stability, control, execution, release, etc is whats referred to as pretty, then there is misunderstanding to what the actual standards and principles are for the CMA..

"Which is more useful - Effective or Pretty (art)". Who said pretty cant be effective. Remember, one should not judge an art on the outward appearance of an exibitionist; kungfu, wushu, karate, tae kwon do, etc... And, Ive seen it from all arts, but I also seen guys from many arts that would tear someone a new one in the ring, etc, regardless if the appear pretty or not.. Anywho, I really hate using the word pretty, cause it just doesnt denote the efforts of the Martial artist, performer or fighter. Both take a great deal of perfection, time, & commitment...

Anyway, just wanted to say, its not right to compare apples to oranges, given we dont know a person true intent in the MA's; performer, fighter, or "MARTIAL ARTIST".

IMHO.
CS

[tattooedmonk]

I just wanted to comment on your statement about pretty forms but cannot fight. - There are people in the martial arts who do not wish to learn the fighting aspects or I should say, study comprehensively the fighting applications of their art. They merely use the arts as a means to stay fit and healthy, while maintaining their athletic abilities for personal or performance interests.... Then you have those who dive deep into the arts and there fighting application. These individuals not only perfect their art (look pretty), but can fight very good as well... I dont think they really care about someone tearing their silk uniform while their whooping someone's @ss, IMHO . On the flip side, I;ve seen others who cant perform their art to any CMA standard, but can open a can of whoop @ss on someone who looked to be a competant fighter and again, the tearing of cloths isn't a factor..

Now, to comment on the statement - "For those who think the CMA are suppost to look pretty". Well if speed, power, precision, flexibilty, stability, control, execution, release, etc is whats referred to as pretty, then there is misunderstanding to what the actual standards and principles are for the CMA..

"Which is more useful - Effective or Pretty (art)". Who said pretty cant be effective. Remember, one should not judge an art on the outward appearance of an exibitionist; kungfu, wushu, karate, tae kwon do, etc... And, Ive seen it from all arts, but I also seen guys from many arts that would tear someone a new one in the ring, etc, regardless if the appear pretty or not.. Anywho, I really hate using the word pretty, cause it just doesnt denote the efforts of the Martial artist, performer or fighter. Both take a great deal of perfection, time, & commitment...

Anyway, just wanted to say, its not right to compare apples to oranges, given we dont know a person true intent in the MA's; performer, fighter, or "MARTIAL ARTIST".

IMHO.
CS

I never said that if it was pretty that it could not be effective in fighting....but most of the people that are more concerned about whether it looks pretty or not are performance artist and not martial artists...basically dancers. Nor did I say that if someone made it look pretty they could not use it effectively in a fight( I do both) if you do it for performance or for recreation or a hobbie you are not a martialartist martial artists do it for all the reasons not just the ones they choose.

as for the bit about the uniform how much practical application are you learning if you are wearing these way out costumes during practice...or teeshirts or whatever?? none.

You have not answered the question about what is the definition of what CMA is or is not beyond all the superficial BS.

[ninthdrunk]

TTM, you keep bringing up the same things, man...


"Going by the definition of what tradition is,( latin word traditio meaning "to hand over" or "pass down"),it is obvious SD has traditions which come from many sources they just are not the ones most commonly followed ."

The problem with this line of reasoning is that everything would have to be seen as a traditional art no matter how much it has changed, so long as it had a tradition of passing along information. With that in mind, it seems like even modern sport wushu could be a traditional art, because it clearly has traditions, they're just "not the ones most commonly followed." I guess for lack of a better way of saying it, having "traditions" does not make an art traditional.

I think people on here feel as though in order to be considered a traditional/CMA/shaolin art, it should contain certain recognizable aspects that other traditional/CMA/shaolin arts have. It's like trying to convince someone that a hamster is a dog and saying, "well, dogs have four legs and fur, and this animal clearly has four legs and fur, so it must be a dog." People aren't going to buy that, because they are used to seeing certain defining characteristics in dogs (or traditional/CMA/Shaolin arts) that they don't see in the hamster (or shaolin do).***

Which brings us to:

" The forms are Chinese in origin ...this seems obvious...how they are performed in demonstrations does not make them any less effective as a martial art or anyless CMA."

Clearly it's not so obvious, otherwise the people on here who have been around awhile and who have been exposed to so many CMA would not be confused and raising such a stink about it. Just like you are always demanding evidence from people about why they feel it's NOT a Chinese art, why don't you enlighten them as to why it's so obvious.


And now:

"At least we are not wearing monk robes and shaving are heads ( pretending to me monks) or wearing some queer colored trimmed silk which will get torn and ripped from your body the first time someone gets ahold of it!!!"

Why in the world are you attacking what people wear? It seems like in the same breath you will claim it doesn't matter about outward trappings, and then turn right around and say something like this. Oh, and I didn't know that queers came in a certain color...


You try to talk all this mess about Shaolin being a philosophy. I sure hope you don't feel as though you're walking that path. Perhaps it's just something in the facelessness of the internet, but you are a very demanding, condescending and overall rude individual. Your ability to lump all questioners and doubters of Shaolin-Do into one group is quite insulting to those on here asking legitimate questions. Grandmaster Sin wants us all to be ambassadors of our art, not attack dogs, trained to snarl and snip at everyone with a difference of opinion. Surely, someone as learned and educated as yourself should be able to have more civil and meaningful conversations.


If no one is answering your questions in the way you want, why don't you tell us what you think, in perfect, unambiguous detail, what CMA is all about, and why Shaolin Do qualifies. Then, others can state their objections and counters...if you haven't been ignored by everyone on here other than myself (...'cause I think you mean well....just a little of the mark).



***I in no way mean to compare Shaolin Do to a hamster in terms of effectiveness in fighting.

[MasterKiller]

as for the bit about the uniform how much practical application are you learning if you are wearing these way out costumes during practice...or teeshirts or whatever?? none.

uh...practical application would be to learn to fight in a T-shirt, unless you walk around in your Gi all the time. Guys who do Gi-only training usually get beat up once the Gis come off. Hope you never get into a fight on the beach.

[Citong Shifu]

I never said that if it was pretty that it could not be effective in fighting....but most of the people that are more concerned about whether it looks pretty or not are performance artist and not martial artists...basically dancers. Nor did I say that if someone made it look pretty they could not use it effectively in a fight( I do both) if you do it for performance or for recreation or a hobbie you are not a martialartist martial artists do it for all the reasons not just the ones they choose.

as for the bit about the uniform how much practical application are you learning if you are wearing these way out costumes during practice...or teeshirts or whatever?? none.

You have not answered the question about what is the definition of what CMA is or is not beyond all the superficial BS.

TTM, I will not argue with you pertaining to my recent post "Pretty or Effective". Your words and statements on this issue says it all... You in fact did insinuate that pretty is not effective and then went to say "which is more useful - pretty or effective"... Anyway, thats not the point. The point is, art (pretty) = efficeincy, efficeincy = effectiveness (as to the martial artist not performer). I was just commenting on outward comparrisons between martial artist and performers, who really knows what the intent of the person being compared????? Of course, unless you know the individual in question...

As far as, the cloths issue... Who really cares about cloths... Not a martial artist! Applications concerning cloths, who cares. If you cant execute your skills on someone wearing a jacket, t-shirt, uniform, tank top, bare skin, etc, than somethings wrong with that aspect of training... Aplications huh, what would you do against someone with no shirt on or a flimsy top, lol. At the most nothing or you might tear the top off . People who wear jackets, sweat shirts, hoodies, etc, lol, that type of clothing is easy to grab and assist with throws and chokes.... BUT, if you have to train with a certain type of clothing to make your techniques work, well then, good luck... The clothing issue has no real relavence, other than common knowledge...

The question on "What defines CMA or TCMA, I already gave my opinion on this subject on an earlier post...

CS...

[Green Cloud]

GC - "I'm astounded by how much evidence that is unearthed to support the claims about one of the oldest fighting styles to date...In relation to SD the only evidence they have to support their claims is Mythology."

I was under the impression that the original "Pankration" was lost and it's been reconstructed by modern groups.

A martial art...the original form no longer REALLY taught...just various groups and their interpretations. Hey! You're right, it does have something to do with shaolin/shaolin-do.

http://historical-pankration.com/

What are you a car sales man?? Read what I wrote since you took the time to type it out.

"I am astounded by how much evidence that is unearthed to support the claims" in Pancration. Even though Pancration is several thousands of years old the historical evidence is in tact. Just go on the site and look for your self

In regard to SD you guys have no evidece to support any of the historical claims SD people make it's closer to Mythology.

As far as Pankration being reconstructed it was based on detailed manuals and art work that very clearly show Pancration fighting skills. Not to mention that Olympic style wrestling is Pancration with rules if you don't believe me just book a ticket to Athens and vist Acropolis and you can see it for your self.

Ok boys and girls lets look up what EVIDENCE means,,, That wich serves to prove or disprove something; support proof.

[tattooedmonk]

uh...practical application would be to learn to fight in a T-shirt, unless you walk around in your Gi all the time. Guys who do Gi-only training usually get beat up once the Gis come off. Hope you never get into a fight on the beach.

..... a gi is useful for continued practice of practical application without having to buy new t shirts or whatever else on a daily basis ..... it is strong, durable ,and can withstand continued punishment other types can not....

of course this only applys to when you have cloths on..do not be stupid...you knew what I meant. But of course you think inside the box and have very narrow views on everything.....

[tattooedmonk]

TTM, I will not argue with you pertaining to my recent post "Pretty or Effective". Your words and statements on this issue says it all... You in fact did insinuate that pretty is not effective and then went to say "which is more useful - pretty or effective"... Anyway, thats not the point. The point is, art (pretty) = efficeincy, efficeincy = effectiveness (as to the martial artist not performer). I was just commenting on outward comparrisons between martial artist and performers, who really knows what the intent of the person being compared????? Of course, unless you know the individual in question...

As far as, the cloths issue... Who really cares about cloths... Not a martial artist! Applications concerning cloths, who cares. If you cant execute your skills on someone wearing a jacket, t-shirt, uniform, tank top, bare skin, etc, than somethings wrong with that aspect of training... Aplications huh, what would you do against someone with no shirt on or a flimsy top, lol. At the most nothing or you might tear the top off . People who wear jackets, sweat shirts, hoodies, etc, lol, that type of clothing is easy to grab and assist with throws and chokes.... BUT, if you have to train with a certain type of clothing to make your techniques work, well then, good luck... The clothing issue has no real relavence, other than common knowledge...

The question on "What defines CMA or TCMA, I already gave my opinion on this subject on an earlier post...

CS...

no you just assumed...

just because it is pretty does not mean that it is effective as a martialart..get a clue...like I said these people are dancers not martialartist...I have been trained to see the intent as to whether it is for show or for fighting..most of what I see is for show no matter how much they say it is a martial art..

as far as the uniform just read my proceeding post ..get a clue... of course the uniform does not matter in the grand picture ..but it sure seems to matter to alot of folk here that use it to define what is and what is not kung fu CMA or TCMA....this was my point... I do not need a specific piece of clothing to perform or apply my techniques...or to legitimize my art

[tattooedmonk]

http://historical-pankration.com/

What are you a car sales man?? Read what I wrote since you took the time to type it out.

"I am astounded by how much evidence that is unearthed to support the claims" in Pancration. Even though Pancration is several thousands of years old the historical evidence is in tact. Just go on the site and look for your self

In regard to SD you guys have no evidece to support any of the historical claims SD people make it's closer to Mythology.

As far as Pankration being reconstructed it was based on detailed manuals and art work that very clearly show Pancration fighting skills. Not to mention that Olympic style wrestling is Pancration with rules if you don't believe me just book a ticket to Athens and vist Acropolis and you can see it for your self.

Ok boys and girls lets look up what EVIDENCE means,,, That wich serves to prove or disprove something; support proof.

SD has as much evidence as any other kung fu or martialarts lineage..... because until recently ( 100 to 150 years ago ) none of these arts wrote anything down except some of the material it's self ..it was all passed down by oral tradtions...until recently the art of pankration had been a lost art and was only found through different acient texts and very few people were even doing anything close to it...most likely only greeco roman wrestling