Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[kwaichang]

I have been accused of not being a team player as it were in SD and by being critical of M Grooms. I re read the rules slowly so as not to miss anything and looked at the movie of M Grooms. If calling things the way I see them is disrespectful then OK. But if one has the rules and understands them and still does the form different , on purpose, than the rules call for, then that in itself is what makes others question the quality and realness of SD. If we are all students of GMT " those of us that are" and those continue to perform it "wrong" that is sad for what ever the reason. How can 4 different Senior Masters do the same form so different if they all know the rules ?? KC

[synack]

I see this all the time in SD. I know in the CSC, you might have 3 different people show you the same thing. ALL DIFFERENTLY. VERY annoying.

I don't think this is limited to M Grooms. It's a problem with the system. Too much to learn in to short of time.

[Baqualin]

I see this all the time in SD. I know in the CSC, you might have 3 different people show you the same thing. ALL DIFFERENTLY. VERY annoying.

I don't think this is limited to M Grooms. It's a problem with the system. Too much to learn in to short of time.

Your very correct...I see it in all schools including ours...not just SD/CSC....GMS gives us the tools...it's up to us to learn how to use them....he wants us to research & study...as I said before, most people in the system are everyday working people who have a life outside of SD/CSC & don't practice & study outside of their class. My anwser to to much to fast is to SLOW down smell the roses....work you way to Blk belt at you own pace then decide what you like best and focus on that. Regarding the differences in the masters...people are people.....everyone has their take on things and it's hard to over come that when the system has got as large as SD/CSC... the ego differences will not let everyone work as a unit.....GMS has tried to standardize everything, but everybody wants to do their own thing...now look what we have now.....politics!!
BQ

I'm really glad to see all the students from both sides trying to get to know each other...that can change things.
BQ

[Chain Whip]

Your very correct...I see it in all schools including ours...not just SD/CSC....GMS gives us the tools...it's up to us to learn how to use them....he wants us to research & study...as I said before, most people in the system are everyday working people who have a life outside of SD/CSC & don't practice & study outside of their class. My anwser to to much to fast is to SLOW down smell the roses....work you way to Blk belt at you own pace then decide what you like best and focus on that. Regarding the differences in the masters...people are people.....everyone has their take on things and it's hard to over come that when the system has got as large as SD/CSC... the ego differences will not let everyone work as a unit.....GMS has tried to standardize everything, but everybody wants to do their own thing...now look what we have now.....politics!!
BQ

I'm really glad to see all the students from both sides trying to get to know each other...that can change things.
BQ

Great post BQ. Very well said. The differences between various people in SD should not create animosity. Obviously, GMT has a different outlook. He signed the Master level certificates for all of the Master’s in our art. The problem stems from teachers saying “this way is right – everyone else is wrong” A great example was a few years back EM Leonard taught a Tai Chi Broadsword Two-Man Set seminar in Atlanta. It was a fair bit different than what SM Grooms was doing – not bad – not wrong – just different. A couple of years later SM Grooms has to teach the same form to people in the Internal Program. To try avoiding any controversy he pulled out the video of him learning the form with EM Mingione as GMT talks them through it. He made sure that what was taught out was exactly what he learned from GMT. If you put the video of EM Leonard teaching Tai Chi Broadsword Two-Man set next to the one of GMT teaching it, they have several significant differences. SM Grooms passed on exactly what he was taught by his teacher. SM Grooms doesn’t think EM Leonard is wrong but he has to pass on what HE was taught.

[kwaichang]

A persons application of a technique may be different but the technique should be based upon what they are taught and the rules . If this is done we should all do the technique the same or close. Much closer than some of the observations I have made. So how do these MAJOR changes come about. ?? I think it is ego everyone wants to do their own thing, they dont call their art SD as GMT calls it they call it something else like Shaolin Kung fu or CSC or Shaolin Tao. Everyone wants to be the big fish. If this offends I appologize but I just call it the way I see it. There is GMT then EM Leonard then EM Smith then the others I am not sure of the total order . Sorry guys but that is the pecking order and that is how it is. It is based on rank and time in the art. PERIOD. Not vague claims. KC As for me and mine I follow that order. I respect them all but show my allegance to GMT and his students based upon their rank and time in the art and their allegance to GMT and SD. KC

[Shaolin Wookie]

I'm not trying to troll you KC, or start up anything, but that's even what GM The' did. His brother split off to teach another program with a different structure, called Chung Yen (apparently the name of the school in Indonesia). GM The' called his Shaolin-do. I'm willing to bet neither is a reproduction of the Indonesian school, and I'm sure the Indonesian school was not a reproduction of the way GGM Ie Chang Ming learned from GGGM Su Kong. Just like I'm sure the CSC isn't verbatim Shaolin-do.

Labeling it ego shouldn't really be pejorative. Ego is I. The person practicing the art is the art in action. It's always going to change according to personal preference, physical ability, and geography. Nobody is the same. Some day GM The' is going to pass on (hopefully far in the future). But definately in our lifetimes. Will SD and CSC remain bonded?

From hints of tensions on this board, and rumors that circulate, I'd speculate they'll just co-exist without any interaction whatsoever outside of private liaisons. I'm not trying to be an @$$hole....it just doesn't seem (from tensions on this board, and various PM's), that there would be an heir to the system that would be as accepting and unifying a force as GM The'.

What will happen then?
What's your opinion? Again...not meant to troll. Just thinking.

[tattooedmonk]

that I am of the same mind as BQ , we all are here for the same reason and have been influenced and taught by GMS, without him we would not know or have what it is that we do. Everyone is going to find differences in their material because of interpretations and perceptions . This does not make one person right and another person wrong, just different .

As long as we follow by the rules and guidlines set out by the ancient masters we could make MMA into a traditional and internal art!!!

[kwaichang]

But, if you are taught a straight punch 20 years ago in a form, for example, and the rule says the elbow brushes the side, then why is the punch changed to a hook punch. When a student whatever the level changes what they are taught then something is lost. What I have seen from the upper powers is a MAJOR change for the sake of change. This to me spells disaster for our style as it discredits us all. The changes I am talking about are blatant. I am not talking application. Later KC

[brucereiter]

But, if you are taught a straight punch 20 years ago in a form, for example, and the rule says the elbow brushes the side, then why is the punch changed to a hook punch. When a student whatever the level changes what they are taught then something is lost. What I have seen from the upper powers is a MAJOR change for the sake of change. This to me spells disaster for our style as it discredits us all. The changes I am talking about are blatant. I am not talking application. Later KC

kc,

what do you think some of the "major" changes to forms are with yang/chen tai chi chuan, classical "original" pakua, hsingi?

best,

bruce

p.s. take a look at some more of my practice if you like. some of what is shown is not so good and some of what is shown is ok.

http://youtube.com/profile?user=brucereiter

[kwaichang]

Your form seems OK I think if you used your legs more and dropped your center your deflection would be more effective. Just an opinion . also I feel the changes are more in the Classical pakua and Taichi Yang. I have not seen others Chen so cant judge. Mostly the changes seem to be in the other external stuff 2-5th Black level. KC

[brucereiter]

I have been accused of not being a team player as it were in SD and by being critical of M Grooms. I re read the rules slowly so as not to miss anything and looked at the movie of M Grooms. If calling things the way I see them is disrespectful then OK. But if one has the rules and understands them and still does the form different , on purpose, than the rules call for, then that in itself is what makes others question the quality and realness of SD. If we are all students of GMT " those of us that are" and those continue to perform it "wrong" that is sad for what ever the reason. How can 4 different Senior Masters do the same form so different if they all know the rules ?? KC

hi kc,

here are several examples of jiangs rong qiao "original" form pakua aka "classical pakua"

you will note each person demonstrates different ways of approaching the same style.


starting with my understanding, this is me ... i am no expert as you may see but i am getting better all the time ... lol ...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tKOjfBuc5TA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eI3mMhNMbLU

below are a few clips, some are known masters, teachers and some are just plain old students.

Jin Liangchan
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dCn7pOKMW0Y

novell bell
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q5qi5TTCUvU

ben hill
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-UhZ3PYOAt8

m grooms
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=7

Luo Jinhua
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icwEuTHsDKM

if anyone has any other demonstrations of this style of pakua they can link please do ...

best,

bruce

p.s.

this is just for entertainment ... lol ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIYrIgy5t-I

[brucereiter]

Your form seems OK I think if you used your legs more and dropped your center your deflection would be more effective. Just an opinion . also I feel the changes are more in the Classical pakua and Taichi Yang. I have not seen others Chen so cant judge. Mostly the changes seem to be in the other external stuff 2-5th Black level. KC

true about dropping my center ...

can you explain some of the changes/differences with yang 64 and with classical pakua.

the external stuff i really do not know about ...

best,

bruce

[kwaichang]

When I say changes I mean differences, some train Yang 64 at a 30 minute pace some 20, at times the angle and stance are different some do it with the front and back foot in line and some off line. some have more waist and others do not. These are just observations I have made, also Hsing Ie seems to be the one with the biggest differences. For example the three Body stance seems to have a different meaning in Colorado Tennessee Texas and Atlanta from what I have seen. I try to maintain the triangle of my stance. if it is a short bostance then it does not maintain the definition of the 3 body stance. As I was taught. KC

[brucereiter]

When I say changes I mean differences, some train Yang 64 at a 30 minute pace some 20, at times the angle and stance are different some do it with the front and back foot in line and some off line. some have more waist and others do not. These are just observations I have made, also Hsing Ie seems to be the one with the biggest differences. For example the three Body stance seems to have a different meaning in Colorado Tennessee Texas and Atlanta from what I have seen. I try to maintain the triangle of my stance. if it is a short bostance then it does not maintain the definition of the 3 body stance. As I was taught. KC

i have also seen very different understandings expressed from the various schools i have visited.

i have heard some say they practice the yang 64 for at a pace that takes them 30-50 minutes to complete. i think that is too slow.

i do it 3 basic ways:
"fast" round about 4-5 minutes
"normal" round 10-13 minutes
"long" round about 20 minutes.

in my practice i will do yang 64 back to back several times. sometimes i will go very slow pace and others a bit fast but the important part in my opinion is not how slow i go but how connected my movements are.

i understand your thought on san ti, i have observed many versions of it from all the "groups" you mentioned. i think the height of the "bo stance" is not as important as the body alignment. but you should do it as you are taught and also as you discover from practicing what you were taught.

another question i will repeat is do you think gmt could have taught (lets use yang 64 as the example) differently to the various masters/teachers/students that he has taught one on one or in a class setting.

best

bruce

[Golden Tiger]

another question i will repeat is do you think gmt could have taught (lets use yang 64 as the example) differently to the various masters/teachers/students that he has taught one on one or in a class setting.

Move for move, yes. Master Sin has never been a big stickler for "this hand must go right here " everytime as opposed to Master Hiang who was. And there will always be some variation when someone learns and does a form. Personally, I think spending a lot of time on it is missing the forest for the trees.

But having said that, I can see a lot of differences in the forms from when they were first taught (yes, I was there for most of them) and drilled and drilled and drilled and some of the versions today. I think what happened is a dilution effect. Some popped up to the Sports Center, learned something once, took notes (this was in the days of 200lb camcorders mind you) then never took the time to soilidify the foundation of what the particular form had to offer.

So it comes as no suprise that when some of us see obvious additions, subtractions and just plain wrong stuff being done, we do stop and just shake our heads at it.