Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Leto]

I agree. The legends of Bodhidharma, while maybe not historically accurate, and possibly completely fictional, are taught to present a lesson. Mastery is not about doing as many different things as you can. The first patriarch came to correct the practice of Buddhism, he saw the Chinese building all kinds of big temples, erecting expensive statues, monks focusing on memorizing so many sutras as the sign of their knowledge of Buddhism. Well, this wasn't really "what it's all about", and Bodhidharma spent nine years meditating in a cave, showing the monks what is "real". He draws from the sutras, but emphasizes freedom from the texts. His teaching consists of extremely long periods of meditation.
Martial arts goes the same way. While it is good to have diverse experiences, mastery comes not from always seeking for the next new thing, memorizing more and more words, gathering more "knowledge". Deep understanding overcomes the feeling of boredom which initially comes from repition. It requires discipline to move past those feelings, which everyone experiences, where you want something more, where your ego tells you "this is boring", or "this is too hard". This is the "fight" which I think every martial artist has to win.
The Ch'an master is not bored sitting motionless for countless hours. The martial arts master is not bored performing the most basic techniques over and over again. If you listen to what all the words are saying, rather than just repeating them, it would be apparent that the most important thing is to "just do it".

However, that journey of accumulating and then dropping is one that everyone has to go through. If you didn't, how would you know what to drop, and what to keep? But whether you spend 5, or 10, or 20 years accumulating "stuff"...at some point it will all be left behind. "Always departing".

[Chain Whip]

A mile wide and an inch deep.

There is a simple mathematical way to look at MK inane outlook, based on his own geometric equation.

I did the numbers several times just to make sure. But, I keep coming up with the identical answers. A mile wide and an inch deep is exactly the same square area as what he must think is best - an inch wide and a mile deep. Unless he believes one should try to learn even more than we do to increase the square area.

[arinathos.valin]

Happy 4th of July everyone!

A few thoughts on some posts...

I guess one would have to define "better" If by better we mean a person would have better skill with a front snap kick if that is all they did. That would obviously make sense. Most would argue that maybe more than a front snap kick would be better for martial skill. So, let's add a punch maybe a block, maybe another kick. Where you cut-off your learning is the issue. Some would say 10 techniques and others might say 100.

It is clearly NOT better to only learn a few things from a standpoint of health and longevity. A constant challenge to the mind and body to learn and develop new skills is a far better approach than to learn 10 moves by the time you are 15 and practice just those for the rest of your boring life.

What many people seem to do in martial arts is study in a fashion that best strokes their ego. They want to find a style that suits them, learn a few forms and just work on those forever. While it may sound logical to study a style that suits your natural skills it is hard to call that personal development. What you are doing is identifying your weaknesses and making sure you don’t address them.

I think you've set up a straw man argument here (i.e. putting forth an inaccurate interpretation of the argument and then countering that interpretation). The argument isn't that 10 moves would be sufficient for a lifetime. The argument is that the sheer volume of forms that are presented make it difficult to excel in learning the principles of each form. I would argue that a true in-depth analysis of applications of far fewer forms would yield more benefits than just learning a whole slew of katas with only a superficial understanding of each one. The 'constant challenge to the mind and body' is not to learn ever more forms, but to unlock the hidden meanings and applications of the forms one already knows. I can remember a seminar by Master Eric Smith that concentrated ONLY on short kata 1, the first move that just about anyone in the system learns. If one can spend a whole seminar on the hidden applications of just that ONE move, how much else is being glossed over by stressing volume over in-depth analysis?

Then I came to the understanding that it is indeed the old "learn one thing well, rather than 20 things poorly" kind of mentality at work. Generally, students will learn what they want far better than what they don't have great interest in. Yet they're exposed to the principles of diverse martial arts styles, so at least if they don't even approach mastering a system, they at least understand a part of it. Training in several diverse styles teaches different power mechanics (shoulder blade rolling and ripping power in tiger strikes/rakes, whipping power in cranes, snapping in mantis), gets your body moving in different ways, and generally helps your martial knowledge.

REally, I don't like internal arts. I know this about myself. It's not a lack of patience or practice. I just generally do not like them. I do not feel that I would use taiji movements in any kind of conflict. To me, Taiji is like golf--it's an activity some people find relaxing, but annoys me and frustrates me greatly. (I saw Bruce's vidpost, and said to myself: wow, I suck--and he's awesome.) Yet I've derived great benefit through the practice of taiji. My body mechanics improved manifold. I've managed to loosen up my waist to a greater degree, and I've helped myself coordinate hand and foot movements. I don't care what style it is, where it came from, etc. Honestly, before I started kung fu training at SD, I had no idea that taiji was an actual form, and not people just freestyling.... I do know enough about taiji, however, to see the parallels between what I'm doing there, and what I'm doing in, say, Se MEng Tao Lian (very alike, IMO).

In the book "Power of the Internal Martial Arts" by B.K. Frantzis, he also extolls the virtues of cross training in different styles. My concern, however, is that if one's understanding of the principles of another style is based on an incomplete understanding of that style, how much understanding can truly be gained? I have only minimal exposure to other shaolin styles, so I can't compare SD's forms with others... but I've seen some demonstrations from other internal stylists of SD internal forms that have left me shaking my head in amazement. In addition, if the forms that this 'understanding' is based on is done poorly by the practitioner, it becomes a double whammy... an incomplete understanding of a form that is, by itself, incomplete!

As a side note of personal preference, I couldn't stop snickering every time I had to do the extended 'kiai' during the four punches of Se Mun Da Lien. I found the next 'Flying Tiger' form to be far more interesting and fun to do. I have to admit, I find only a very superficial relation between the mechanics of the Se Mun form and taiji...I'd be interested in hearing Shaolin Wookie's thoughts on the relationship of the two forms...

I should also add that during the sparring sessions in the Shorin-Ryu dojo, I've been specifically emphasizing the use of taiji and baguazhang principles and techniques, and doing remarkably well so far. According to my SD instructor, the internal styles were taught within the system only when Master Eric started learning taiji/bagua and began to dominate the sparring sessions within the SD school...

[brucereiter]

According to my SD instructor, the internal styles were taught within the system only when Master Eric started learning taiji/bagua and began to dominate the sparring sessions within the SD school...

that is interesting. i have not heard that before ... do you know when that was? some sd people have told me they started learning "yang 64" and "classical pakua" in the mid 1970's ...

best

bruce

[Leto]

I agree with arinathos valin. This is part of why I stopped attending classes...the constant push to the next new form. You spend just long enough on a form to memorize it, then you start the next. As soon as you know all your material for the level, it's time to test. Even before you've completed your test, you're starting to learn the next set of new material. Even at the higher levels, this is the case. I saw it with my instructor and others.
There needs to be more time spend on each form. The material presented through the brown belt levels is enough to work on for many years, and the same goes for the material presented at any one black belt level. Just the curriculum of testing from first to second black,( in CSC), could be a complete style, with four black tiger forms, Cheng's 37 Yang taiji and classical bagua, along with weapons, dao, chiang, and tiger hooks. just add a staff form and a jian form, and what else do you need? This material could be explored for years. I would like to see someone who is really good at sparring in the black tiger method presented in our forms, it would be interesting to watch.

[Judge Pen]

Hello all...

Been a long time lurker on this thread, and I'm about to "step into the Octagon" with my first post on this subject...

Firstly, my congratulations to Judge Pen, who has been remarkably civil in his posts even in the face of rather inflammatory statements. It's quite refreshing considering how poisonous some of the posts have been. People can disagree vehemently without being disagreeable... so thanks to JP for keeping a level head in the discussion.

Thank-you

I did Shaolin-Do from about 1997-2005, earning a black belt in the process. I stuck with the system despite some serious misgivings because of my instructor, who was excellent. He had a very good grasp of body mechanics, form, style, and a healthy respect for the internal arts. He would tell stories about Master Eric Smith that were mind-boggling from a skill standpoint. He was not a devout defender of Shaolin-Do lore, realizing that more than a few legends surrounding GMT were improbable. I still consider him a good friend...

So... what were my misgivings about Shaolin-Do as a martial art? Here are a few of them...

1) Although lineage is not the most important aspect of a martial art (you can have the best lineage in the world and STILL suck...) I do think it offers a way to verify who has come before you and what their skill level was. The Shaolin-Do lineage as described in the book "Shaolin-Do:Secrets from the Temple" is suspect, as are some of the 'tall tales' listed in the book about old masters. I find it hard to trust someone if they misrepresent their credentials, even if they are very capable in their abilites...

I can understand this. I think this is a problem that extends well beyond SD, but that doesn't justify it.

2) I found an overemphasis on forms in the system, and it seemed that some forms had been co-opted into the system without proper credit to the originators. I had previously had a great deal of training in Yang Taijiquan. In SD, the Taiji 24 move form originated in the 1950s as a condensed Yang form. The "Taiji 64" form is actually Cheng Man Ching's 37 posture form, which some consider to be different in philosophy and practice than the original Yang style. The 'original' Yang style 108 move form is not in the SD system. The Baguazhang Classical form taught in SD is actually a variation of a form produced by Jiang Rong Qiao. None of this is discussed in any detail in the Secrets from the Temple book.

The origin of these forms is correct. I will say that tai chi 24 has always been credited as coming from outside the system and taught be GM The' so that we would know one of the most popular forms in tai chi, but a simple comparision of 64 and Pa Kua to yang 37 and JRQ's pa kua show them to be the same.

3) I felt the huge number of forms watered down the execution of these forms greatly. Paraphrasing Wang Shu Jin, it is better to do a few things well than to do many things poorly. I can remember watching a few tournaments in Lexington. A few of the performers were excellent... but more of them were uninspiring. At least one involving a higher level black belt and the Li Kuei axes was laughable. I've been doing some video comparisons between SD's version of Jiang Baguazhang and Chen Taiji with some other demonstrations of those same forms by Luo Jinhua and Ren Guangyi. The differences in technique are astounding, with subtleties in body mechanics and positioning that are not found in our versions of those forms. Not that long ago, the SD system began an 'internal style' advancement track that culminated in the awarding of a black sash. It covered numerous forms in Xingyi, Bagua, and Taiji. I thought it somewhat disengenuous that one would be able to get a 'black sash' in internal martial arts when there are people that have studied just ONE of those internal systems for decades...

As I have said many times, due to the large number of forms and some instructors teaching multiple forms outside of the core material several times a year, there is a problem with students having too much and doing too little. Frankly, there's a problem with instructors having too much and doing too little. As you have seen, there are some very good teachers and instructors and there are some very poor ones out there.

As for the internal curriculim, it is the same as the external. One who gets a black sash only has deomnstrated the capacity to remember and perform a selection of internal forms. At least in my area (and I suspect a few more that I can't speak for) the internal elements are taught and practiced, but the form retention is what drives the rank progression so the real study and practice is then left to the student. It will take me years to grasp all of the internal principles in the forms that I already have. I'm actually looking forward to slowing down my external progression and focusing on those forms and all of the subtleties. Maybe then I can remove myself from you accurate and critical observation. I think there are some in the system who already have distinguished themselves in this way.

4) The Gis...as superficial as this is, it still bugged me. I might have bought the idea that Indonesians hated Chinese enough for the art to go 'underground' as it were... but that certainly isn't the case in America. If we're a Chinese art, we should be wearing Chinese uniforms!!!

Eh, they don't bug me, but here in Tennessee we wear chinese uniforms too. I think that they are more comfortable, but most of the time I just wear the pants and a t-shirt.

This isn't to say that practitioners of Shaolin-Do have no skill...there are students and teachers who would give ANY other school a run for their money in sparring/fighting. Certainly there have been significant benefits for me thanks to Shaolin-Do.

I agree, and I'm glad to hear you say so as well.I'm currently in a Shorin-Ryu Karate Dojo because excellent instruction in the internal martial arts is hard to come by here.

My father-in-law has his black belt in shorin-ryu and judo (although he is too ill to really show me anything). Good luck in your training. The senseis have really ramped up my training quickly due to my past experience, and the katas are actually quite easy thanks to my previous experience with more complex forms. That is true, if you've done SD, learning forms becomes very easy in other arts. However, it makes me wonder how much ****her I would have come with my skills in Baguazhang, or Taiji if I had had a dedicated instructor in one of those arts, compared to the SD system where those forms are just one of a myriad of different forms. You would be ****her along. But, as you said, quality instruction in these arts alone is very difficult to come by unless you live in a major metro area on the east or west coasts.

Perhaps I'll come back with more, but it's past 1:30am right now.

G'night, all!

Thanks for posting. Its refreshing to see that a former SD player can post objectively about the art instead of rail on how patheitc it was when, prior to leaving, they would rail on how wonderful the art is. I appreciate the perspective.

[Judge Pen]

I guess one would have to define "better" If by better we mean a person would have better skill with a front snap kick if that is all they did. That would obviously make sense. Most would argue that maybe more than a front snap kick would be better for martial skill. So, let's add a punch maybe a block, maybe another kick. Where you cut-off your learning is the issue. Some would say 10 techniques and others might say 100.

It is clearly NOT better to only learn a few things from a standpoint of health and longevity. A constant challenge to the mind and body to learn and develop new skills is a far better approach than to learn 10 moves by the time you are 15 and practice just those for the rest of your boring life.

What many people seem to do in martial arts is study in a fashion that best strokes their ego. They want to find a style that suits them, learn a few forms and just work on those forever. While it may sound logical to study a style that suits your natural skills it is hard to call that personal development. What you are doing is identifying your weaknesses and making sure you don’t address them.

Chain Whip, I'm enjoying your posts more and more. There's a good chance we may have met before.

[Judge Pen]

shaolindoiscool - Thank you for the post comparisons. Even though I really wanted to see the external styles compared. That gave me what I was looking for but for Internal, still good comparisons.

NJM - As much as my teacher can. They're very good teachers and will always show you the attack/defense behind movements in forms. I can't say that all SD schools are like that... but the CSC school that I go to... they do.

I like the stuff I'm learning and I've never been this flexible in my life. I'm going to make it a point to ignore the lineage (or as some say, lack thereof). And also make it a point not to disrespect another art or their lineage, I think these arguments just get into the "my dad can beat up your dad" crap.

So, I guess what I'm saying is. If you don't like it. Don't join. But I'm going to have fun and if down the road I find something else I like. I'll pursue it also.

-Syn

My flexibility has always been bad too. Still is, so you'll probably never be the best forms person and there will be some moves in some forms that you just can't do. But you'll find plenty of techniques to help you fight. We talked about side kicks a couple of weeks ago, from the little I know about you so far, work up you kicks where they are fast and sneaky from the solor plexus down. The hands are for the head and body. Its a figthing strategy that works really well for me (especially when you can get a kick up high from time to time and save that for the unexpected moments).

[synack]

My flexibility has always been bad too. Still is, so you'll probably never be the best forms person and there will be some moves in some forms that you just can't do. But you'll find plenty of techniques to help you fight. We talked about side kicks a couple of weeks ago, from the little I know about you so far, work up you kicks where they are fast and sneaky from the solor plexus down. The hands are for the head and body. Its a figthing strategy that works really well for me (especially when you can get a kick up high from time to time and save that for the unexpected moments).

Forms are something that is completely new to me. I'm working on them in my spare time as much as I can. When you go through boxing training (atleast for me) there weren't forms. Only combos, ducks, weaves.. bobs. Moving your feet and head and of course blocks. How to take a decent punch to the face, head or body. There wasn't much on stances or flexibility. Strength and speed training were important... and of course sparring. Usually medium to full contact with gloves and sometimes head gear. I quit when I got knocked unconscious.

I know kicks are my weakest point and I'm working on them more and more. I know when we spar at the CSC. I almost always get hit by people kicking...I've learned to block by bringing up my knee to my elbow.

I also get harped on for my hand placement when sparring. I always have them tight inside.

They prefer me to use their hand placement with sparring.

[MasterKiller]

There is a simple mathematical way to look at MK inane outlook, based on his own geometric equation.

I did the numbers several times just to make sure. But, I keep coming up with the identical answers. A mile wide and an inch deep is exactly the same square area as what he must think is best - an inch wide and a mile deep. Unless he believes one should try to learn even more than we do to increase the square area.

[Mas Judt]

Quote:
It is clearly NOT better to only learn a few things from a standpoint of health and longevity. A constant challenge to the mind and body to learn and develop new skills is a far better approach than to learn 10 moves by the time you are 15 and practice just those for the rest of your boring life.

This misses the point... there is a distinct difference between depth of understanding and practice and superficial practice. Shaolin Do may have some merits, but I would make the point that the system suffers by incorporating disparate, sometimes contradictory methods and practicing them in a superficial manner - exactly what they claim Modern Wushu does. (FWIW - for whoever said it, if your Long Fist teacher has you locking your arms out, he's teaching Modern Wushu or not qualified to teach TCMA). You can spend a lifetime extracting the knowledge from a method - constantly challenging your mind and body. Simply adding more, often misunderstood choreography, is really a poor analogy for complexity and change as a tool for growth.

Unfortunately, it always goes back to the blind man and the elephant.


But, hey, if it makes you happy, more power to you. Just don't be selling your 'true authentic Shaolin style' as you are popping off the modified modified tai chi short form created in the 50's by the PRC.

[Judge Pen]

Forms are something that is completely new to me. I'm working on them in my spare time as much as I can. When you go through boxing training (atleast for me) there weren't forms. Only combos, ducks, weaves.. bobs. Moving your feet and head and of course blocks. How to take a decent punch to the face, head or body. There wasn't much on stances or flexibility. Strength and speed training were important... and of course sparring. Usually medium to full contact with gloves and sometimes head gear. I quit when I got knocked unconscious.

I know kicks are my weakest point and I'm working on them more and more. I know when we spar at the CSC. I almost always get hit by people kicking...I've learned to block by bringing up my knee to my elbow.

I also get harped on for my hand placement when sparring. I always have them tight inside.

They prefer me to use their hand placement with sparring.

I usually keep my hands in tighter too unless I'm trying to bait someone into attacking. It's all different perspectives. Maybe you will learn something that can work for you. Regardless its fun to experiment.

[Mas Judt]

Quote
Regardless its fun to experiment.

Best thing said in this thread.

[brucereiter]

hi mas judt,

i was wondering if you had time to look at these videos and to address my questions?

first i will make clear i take no offense at what ever opinions people may have. great thing about america you can have your own opinion.

yeah as i said before hsingi is not my strong point (tai chi chuan is ...) give me a few more years with hsing i i am practicing ... :-)

can you show me karate that looks like what i did?

although i do it poorly i think i do exhibit "some" hsingi principals. at the same time i realize there are several moves in the form as caught on that clip where i do not move all at the same time ... i throw a arm out of time with my body a few times ... lol ... o yeah ... my foot work is lacking too :-(
my lack of skill does not make it not hsingi ... lol ...

to compare here are a few other versions of linking form.

they all have a different "flavor". lots of flavors all being called the same thing. why? how?

what makes them hsing i or not hsing i?

are any of these "karate-like"?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tasjXH-yo...elated&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KEf6JyvrNno
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LE8B03D2l...elated&search=
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=5
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=7
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1



i am a regular poster at ef ... most there hate my hsingi (but like my tai chi chuan/push hands)
i dont know if "nice" is the word i would use for some of them ... lol ...



i am dedicated to my style but i also have my eyes open :-)

what do you mean by claim a system they did not train in?



ok ... i do not understand how "you" or anyone for that matter can say what is and is not "cma".

are they doing cma? is it "traditional"?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=9
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=5


respectfully,

bruce

[brucereiter]

[HTML]

Unfortunately, it always goes back to the blind man and the elephant.


But, hey, if it makes you happy, more power to you. Just don't be selling your 'true authentic Shaolin style' as you are popping off the modified modified tai chi short form created in the 50's by the PRC.

i am not sure how other sd schools present it but i was told from the beginning the "24" form was the most popular and most practiced tai chi form in the world.

i have also been told sin the' learned it from a friend in indonesia in the 80's and thought it had value so he taught it to hi students. to counter that i was also told by one sd person that it was the "original way the shaolin monks did it in the temple ..." i corrected him and he had a blank look on his face as if to say what the hell are you talking about.

i would hope it is common knowledge that everyone who has learned the "24" standard form knows its history as you said prc 1950, modified/combined ... blah blah lol ...

the only thing i am trying to "share" is that no matter where or how a art came to our system some have been able to grasp the "finer points" lol :-) of a particular art.

i dont really care weather sin the learned yang "64" tai chi from ie chang ming or cheng man ching or some other person or from a book or video as some claim he did.

i care what i can do with yang tai chi chuan based on how my teacher taught me and ideas i have found due to my own practice and experimentation.
i am confident that the methods taught to me stack up well with most other schools and better than some. i think this can be seen in how i express the art on these little clips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nJ3vwcR1EQ
please note: i am not claiming greatness or that i am any better than another person i am claiming that i have attained "some" skill from the methods taught to me from a system called "shaolin do".

best,

bruce