Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[brucereiter]

I always like seeing your videos. Thanks for sharing.

It's a bit different from the way that I do it (as is your linkage set), but good stuff nonetheless. Different doesn't mean better, btw. It would be interesting to compare the two one day.

thanks jp ...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-JuMkgpKJwE
check this one out too ... my monkey ...

i would like to see more of what other sd people do and how they express their internal stuff. one of these days i will get to knoxville ...

regarding "different" put 100 tai chi (or what ever) people in a room and tell the to show you tai ch chuan and you will likely see 101 different things and all of them could be "correct"

best,

bruce

[Mas Judt]

"This is just an example of 21 forms. Guess how many forms these people had to learn to achieve their level? Let me tell you right now the answer will blow your mind. 5th Degree Black Belt Associate Masters learn over 200 of these forms. By the time one reaches Elder Master 8th Degree Black Belt, they have mastered over 400 forms!

Long live Shaolin-Do! The only system in the world with all this knowledge and materials"


Well isn't that Ker-Snappy. Check out www.shaolingrandmaster.com and you can discover what the SD preaches. Check out the clip of the 'grandmaster' performing praying mantis.

This is really weird, man.

[Mas Judt]

I quote ffrom Sin The's biography:

"I am also the only person in 1500 years to be honored with two monuments at Shaolin Temples in China."

Then goes on to make it sound like the abbot honored him rather than his students donating money to the temple and getting a stele as a thank you.

I completely take back any rationale I might have applied to this liar to justify his fraud. Either he is dumb as a brick or is a willing liar.

My guess is the later.

Yikes.

[Erasmus Mingatt]

shaolindoiscool,

It's ok. A few observations if I may:

1.) Hsing-I/Shying-Yi is done slower
2.) There is more sinking with the hips before the explosion of the movement
3.) Sinking and rising with the strike should be done more in unison.

All in all..not bad.

[brucereiter]

I completely take back any rationale I might have applied to this liar to justify his fraud. Either he is dumb as a brick or is a willing liar.

My guess is the later.

Yikes.

you can have your opinion and express it how ever you like but i would remind everyone who posts on forums to "type" as if you were face to face with the person you are speaking about.

if you would say that to the mans face i suppose you are ok to say things like that.

to my knowledge of all of the many people who say negative things like that not one has said anything to him in person. why is that?

best,

bruce

[brucereiter]

shaolindoiscool,

It's ok. A few observations if I may:

please and thank you.

1.) Hsing-I/Shying-Yi is done slower

i think i disagree.
a) i do practice it at several speeds depending on what i am working on.
b) some groups do beng much faster than i can and showed in my clip
c)why?
d) how slow?

2.) There is more sinking with the hips before the explosion of the movement

ok .. i will see how it feels.

3.) Sinking and rising with the strike should be done more in unison.

true ... i will play with that idea

All in all..not bad.

thanks.

[Leto]

No one has authority to say what another person's style should or shouldn't look like or "feel" like. Once you learn something, it's yours and it changes because of you. No matter how much we want to believe we are preserving ancient methods of somebody's ancestors intact, it is changing and growing. The "basic principles that should guide everything" are reinterpreted from generation to generation.
It's a little stuck up, and naive, to think that the style anyone, anywhere is practicing today is the same as it was a thousand years ago, or one hundred years ago, or even fifty years ago. This goes for Chinese martial arts of all brands as well as everything else in the world.

So give the "tai chi must be like this", "mantis must be like that" arguments a rest. If you don't like the way something looks, that's fine. "I don't like the way your style looks, feels, flows" whatever. But it's silly to say "my style is right and your style is wrong." or "mine is real and yours is not". It exists and people practice it and fight with it. It's real, no matter what it's name is.
No one can comment on whether anything is effective until they've crossed hands with it and experienced it...so comments about how it looks or feels based on videos or a demonstration are just subjective opinion (that everyone is entitled to).

If two people have the same teacher, there could be a conversation like "teacher told us to do it like this, and you're doing it like that."
But if you're from a different school, a different style, a different teacher, you have no basis to comment on whether something is "correct" or not.

"Yours is different from mine, I do it like this, and this is why.." would be a more constructive comment.

[Erasmus Mingatt]

) "some groups do beng much faster than i can and showed in my clip"

True. There is more than one school of Hsing-Yi. As such there is some variance to what speed each prefers. My suggestion was based on your statement(in the clip) that you are "learning". Internal arts as a general rule recommend going very slow for a good ammount of time because in doing so..the development of chi is fostered. People always talk about "chi-gung".."chi-gung" as if it is the be all and end all. But before one can talk about circulating chi..one must first develop chi. As such..it is not so much a development per se as it is learning to avoid activities which deplete chi(as is often the case in todays world).


"c)why?"

Which of my comments are you asking why about?


"d) how slow?"

again this varies.


Leto,

"No one has authority to say what another person's style should or shouldn't look like or "feel" like."


When you are learning under a particular instructor..they certainly DO have the "authority" to say what said style should or should not "look like". Hence..they are the sifu and you are the student.





"Once you learn something, it's yours and it changes because of you."

The degree of "change" is also individual. There is "change" because of individual differences between students(ie: taller vs. shorter stature, speed of the student in performing individual techniques,etc.) and then there is "change" insofar as modifying of changing the sets completely. When this is done..it's not really the same thing anymore and becomes something else.




"The "basic principles that should guide everything" are reinterpreted from generation to generation."

Not always. Look at Ying Jow Pai. The same basic principles: Jow Da, Cum Na, Fun Gun, Chaw Quat--108 locking techniques of General Ngok Fei,etc. are still the same now as they were hundreds of years ago.


"It's a little stuck up, and naive, to think that the style anyone, anywhere is practicing today is the same as it was a thousand years ago, or one hundred years ago, or even fifty years ago."


And unless you were alive a thousand years ago..it's equally naive to assume that it's not the same. Nuff said.

"This goes for Chinese martial arts of all brands as well as everything else in the world."

Brands?



"So give the "tai chi must be like this", "mantis must be like that" arguments a rest."

Unless you study an actual style of tai chi(not Shaolin-Do) but either: Yang, Wu, Chen, Sun,etc. style from beginning to end..you cannot say this with authority. FYI..there ARE certain characteristics of certain styles which ARE the signature of that style. Even the fastest style of tai-chi is still ALOT slower than most external arts. If you do Yang style tai chi at Choy Li Fut speed..you have missed the point..regardless of what configurations your arms and legs are in. Similarly..if you do a Leopard fist and use Leopard fist philosophies and techniques..you can't say "Yeah..it's praying mantis"..at least not with praying mantis stylists laughing their a-ses off.

[brucereiter]

hi Erasmus Mingatt,

thanks for taking the time to reply. i do not mind someone respectfully disagreeing with me and often times debate leads to mutual benefit.

you answered my "why" in your last post.

i must disagree with most of what you have said though.

for example you say: <<Even the fastest style of tai-chi is still ALOT slower than most external arts. If you do Yang style tai chi at Choy Li Fut speed..you have missed the point.>>

how do you figure that to be true? take fair lady works shuttles as the yang tai chi chuan example and what ever external method is a similar block/punch type of movement.

are you implying that a "tai chi" person should apply the movement slower than as you said a choy li fut person? (i might be misunderstanding you)

i think speed is important to all martial arts.

delivering the max mass at the highest rate ... ... ...

are you implying that i do not practice yang tai chi chuan? i say that i do.

her is an example. http://youtube.com/watch?v=9nJ3vwcR1EQ
<<Unless you study an actual style of tai chi(not Shaolin-Do) but either: Yang, Wu, Chen, Sun,etc. style from beginning to end... ... ... ... ... ... >>

let me ask this:

do you feel a tai chi chuan person should be fast and powerful?

best,

bruce

[cho]

No one has authority to say what another person's style should or shouldn't look like or "feel" like. Once you learn something, it's yours and it changes because of you. . . . .

Then define mastery.

Can everyone learn the movements from a book and make it their own?

There becomes a point when it becomes something completely different than what it once was.

[Golden Tiger]

My anecdote regarding EM Smith and his seminar on Short Kata #1 (and yes, it was SK1... I checked) was merely to point out the depth of material that SD might be missing in its emphasis on hundreds of forms.

Funny story actually....He was invited to ATL to review and teach a class on short forms 1-30 but only made it through # 1 in 1:30. When he left, he told them to let him know when they would be ready to go over # 2.

As for the statement of SD missing the depth because of the numbers, well, He (Master Smith) knows all the forms that have been taught also so the volume couldn't be the problem. The difference, I think, is that he took the time to break down everything he was shown, and study it, not just practice the motions. There are actually quite a few of the masters that have done that. A good way to tell is ask a question about a simple move and sit back and listen to an eye opening in depth response.

To me, that, and not the number of forms learned, defines mastery of an art.

[Mas Judt]

I assure you that I would say the same thing to the man's face. Not being a member of your cult, he just looks silly to me, so you won't find me hiding.

It seems highly dubious to me that NO ONE ever brought this up to him, particularly out of any implied reason such as fear or that Sin The' is the 'one.' COME ON.

More likely, most people are polite. But this is simply dishonest BS.

Grow up.

[brucereiter]

I assure you that I would say the same thing to the man's face. Not being a member of your cult, he just looks silly to me, so you won't find me hiding.

It seems highly dubious to me that NO ONE ever brought this up to him, particularly out of any implied reason such as fear or that Sin The' is the 'one.' COME ON.

More likely, most people are polite. But this is simply dishonest BS.

Grow up.

my observation was that people like your self who are not in the system and publicly say negative things about the system, sin kwang the', and the students in the system; to my knowledge have never said these things face to face.

if you know of any who has i would like to hear about it.

i have "been around" and "touched hands" with many people from all over the world from many arts, styles and skill levels. some have had more skill than me and some have had less skill than me but none have said insulting things to my face
(except one but thats another story ... lol ...)

please do not try to twist the meaning of my comments. as you know it can be difficult to communicate via message boards.

i have only tried to share some of the material presented to me as i learn shaolin do.
i am interested in discussing the content of shaolin do.
i am really not interested in bickering back and forth about you dis-liking sin kwang the'.

i am not a member of any cult. that is a silly statement that sound like a intended insult.

please avoid ad hominem attacks. i dont think they are useful to the debate at hand.

ad ho&#183;mi&#183;nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'h&#228;-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

best,

bruce

p.s. i am a 37 year old man. i am grown up :-)

[Leto]

Mastery is a tricky thing to define. Some say you've got it when you know everything your teacher knew. Maybe you have it when you're able to defeat everyone you meet in a fight Maybe it's something internal, that no one outside can really measure.
The point is, we don't really know where Sin The learned all his stuff. As far as we know, his only teacher was Ie Chang Ming. We don't know anyone else who also was a student of Ie Chang Ming, and we don't really know who Ie's teacher or teachers were. So as far as anyone knows or can prove, Sin The is the "master" of the style he is teaching. It's his own brand of hsing i, bagua, mantis, tiger, crane, drunken, etc. He's not claiming to teach the hsing i of someone else's lineage, he's not claiming to teach the seven star mantis of whatever lineage...it's all his own lineage. Maybe he learned all the stuff from books that he's collected over the years, but no one can prove that. There may be teachers of other styles who learned things from books, too...no one will ever know for sure unless they admit it.

I'm not saying that shaolin do is better, or worse, or just as good as any other style. It has nothing to do with quality of instruction, or depth of material or understanding. It's just that, as far as we know, everything that comes from Sin The is "correct" for his lineage and his style. It's just not the same as other lineages with similar techniques and styles. Maybe you feel it's lacking something, that's ok. But you don't know that it isn't exactly how Sin's teacher taught him, and how the teacher's teacher taught it.

If anyone knows for sure that Sin The learned a form or a style from a book, then show us the book and show us the proof that he learned it from the book, and then you can say "Sin The is doing it wrong, because the writer of the book does it this way".
Until we have proof, it's just speculation, no matter how likely it seems. It's Chinese martial arts because it comes from a Chinese lineage, as far as anyone can prove. Not because it's the same as other Chinese styles.

[Chain Whip]

Posted by Erasmus Mingatt --- And unless you were alive a thousand years ago..it's equally naive to assume that it's not the same. Nuff said.

Also posted by Erasmus Mingatt (same post) --- Not always. Look at Ying Jow Pai. The same basic principles: Jow Da, Cum Na, Fun Gun, Chaw Quat--108 locking techniques of General Ngok Fei,etc. are still the same now as they were hundreds of years ago.

Did anyone else note the contradiction?