Can Shaolin-Do really be called a style or system? It's an organization claiming to teach many different styles/systems. I just think people should stop calling Shaolin-Do a style. Anyway, that's all I've got to say for now
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.
Can Shaolin-Do really be called a style or system? It's an organization claiming to teach many different styles/systems. I just think people should stop calling Shaolin-Do a style. Anyway, that's all I've got to say for now
Originally posted by Brad
Can Shaolin-Do really be called a style or system? It's an organization claiming to teach many different styles/systems. I just think people should stop calling Shaolin-Do a style. Anyway, that's all I've got to say for now
Style, maybe not. System yes. There is an order to it. It starts basic and works it's way from there. It's follows a typical development path like most systems do. Stances, punches, kicks etc. Basic movements then long forms. You don't get your hands on an edged weapon until about a year+ etc.
-Will
Brad, I officially give you permission to stop calling Shaolin-Do a style, system and any other name that you don't care for. Consider it a late Christmas present.........ho ho hoOriginally posted by Brad
Can Shaolin-Do really be called a style or system? It's an organization claiming to teach many different styles/systems. I just think people should stop calling Shaolin-Do a style. Anyway, that's all I've got to say for now
"Pain heals, chicks dig scars..Glory lasts forever"......
from what I have seen of shaolin-do I would say it classifies as a style. Even based on the statement that it is an "organization" that teaches various styles. There is a codified way of movement that unifies everything under the umbrella od s-d and makes it different from the systems themselves.
In other words, for example the way s-d does "long fist" is similar in s-d circles, but different enough from the way other places that do long fist to consider how s-d does it a style.
this is just from my observation of course.
It most definitely is a style and system. Its origins are just not what they claim to be, and that's what bugs everyone.
-------------------------------------------
"It is a good thing to see the world as a dream. When you have something like a nightmare, you will wake up and tell yourself that it was only a dream. It is said that the world we live in is not a bit different from this."
- Yamamoto Tsunetomo, from Hagakure
I see everyones points, but does teaching another style really badly classify it as a style on its own? From what I've observed the different styles that they teach are supposed to have their own unique properties and training methods. I guess there's some things within Shaolin-Do that are unique to Shaolin-Do(some stuff in the basic training probably, like their short forms, and some other forms like "10,000 bees attack" (which I'm dying to see, by the way ). With the taiji and chang quan(for example), they seem to be practicing legit forms and are trying to use legit training methods... it's not another style though, it's just that their missing stuff from their systems. Guess it's all how you look at it though...
Last edited by Brad; 02-10-2005 at 09:56 AM.
No one has seen that form in SD from what I gather. I'd be first in line to see that one too.Originally posted by Brad
I guess there's some things within Shaolin-Do that are unique to Shaolin-Do(some stuff in the basic training probably, like their short forms, and some other forms like "10,000 bees attack" (which I'm dying to see, by the way ).
IN the older days of SD, when everyone trained directly with the The brothers I think the basics of each unqiue form and style were taught. The older guys (no offense GT and BM2) talk of training for 6 months on drills and excercies before being taught a new form. Nowadays, the teachers usually just teach to form and pay a little lip service to what distinguishes them from another form. I think that's the biggest problem with our system; people get too forms hungry (students to learn them and teachers to teach them) and never focus on the basics.
As for shortform, you are right. They are the fundamental "spine" of SD as a system or style or whatever you want to define it as.
In my system I've got 2 1/3 forms in 2 1/3 years. Haven't learnt anything new in 10mths or so. We mostly just drill and spar.Originally posted by Judge Pen
I think that's the biggest problem with our system; people get too forms hungry (students to learn them and teachers to teach them) and never focus on the basics.
"If trolling is an art then I am your yoda.if spelling counts, go elsewhere.........." - BL
"I don't do much cardio." - Ironfist
"Grip training is everything. I say this with CoC in hand." - abobo
JP you are all to right about people getting form hungry,
but i do try to attend all of GM SIN's seminars if for no other reason that to get togather with like minded people,
but no matter how many forms i learn i continue to go back to the basics. every thing i have done has always made me look back and find similar moves or tech. in the upper forms as i could see in the lower forms (just would always be a little harder version )
...or is there something i have missed a glimpse of phantoms in the mist. Traveling down a dusty road bent forward with this heavy load..
Stylistic variation is more the rule than the exception, even within the same lineage.
Take Yang style T’ai Chi for example. Cheng Man Ching made changes to the form and his students represent an interesting range of stylistic variation...looking at William C.C. Chen, T. T. Liang, Robert Chuckrow, and Herman Kauz just to mention a few. That variety hasn’t diminished the art. Evolution and change is what keeps an art alive. SD is no different in this regard.
So many martial arts trace their origins to Shaolin. Just because they are different, doesn’t invalidate them. It's a strength, not a weakness.
Nicely put.Originally posted by oldmonkey
Stylistic variation is more the rule than the exception, even within the same lineage.
Take Yang style T’ai Chi for example. Cheng Man Ching made changes to the form and his students represent an interesting range of stylistic variation...looking at William C.C. Chen, T. T. Liang, Robert Chuckrow, and Herman Kauz just to mention a few. That variety hasn’t diminished the art. Evolution and change is what keeps an art alive. SD is no different in this regard.
There is a difference between tracing your lineage to Shaolin, which a lot of styles can certainly do, and claiming you have the complete and final Shaolin transmission as it was taught before the last Fukien burning, especially when Fukien was probably destroyed 300 or so years ago and your style looks like a *******ized version of all the other legitmate and documented styles that can rightly claim Shaolin roots. In my opinion.Originally posted by oldmonkey
So many martial arts trace their origins to Shaolin. Just because they are different, doesn’t invalidate them.
Has anyone gotten someone that can read Indo to translate the 2000 Jurus article on GM Sin?
-Will
Like a fine wine.......Originally posted by Judge Pen
The older guys (no offense GT and BM2)
"Pain heals, chicks dig scars..Glory lasts forever"......