Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Leto]

First of all SKDJ was at the Fukien Temple was it the one we know of or one like the one that was just discovered to exist ? Who knows? The forms did not all come from the same area or temple this is explained in the history section of one of the sites . There was Omei Kwang Tung Henan Fujien Etc. SKDJ had traveled to these and learned there. Remember although he was Hairy he was supposed to be very gifted in other ways. Like wise ICM was not a renegade monk he left to study with SKDJ............ You can read the rest. But the point is much ofthe history has been skewed by some of the Masters of SD to fit their ego laden personalities and eventually casting doubt on the art as a whole. From the uniform to the "harry guy " etc . KC

Ok, so Su Kong traveled all over China, learning all the forms of martial arts from everywhere. That isn't really any more clear or sensible. I guess we just need to believe in the fantastic, so that we can achieve the same mythical heights one day, ourselves? We know the northern Shaolin temple was destroyed (yet again) during Chiang Kai Shek's northern expedition in 1926. When was the Fukien temple destroyed, that SKTJ was the "grandmaster" of? This hasn't been discovered yet, because it was a secret temple, and a secret mission to destroy it. The ones that have been discovered by archaeology are not really candidates, because they were destroyed much earlier, like the beginning of the Qing dynasty. What has been skewed? That's what I want to know, specifically. If everyone has got it wrong, and there's really a reasonable and good explanation, why can't we have it? I haven't heard it or read it yet, on any website.
Hiang The's school site has the most reasonable of all, and even that has obvious glaring omissions, such as Ie Chang Ming being known as a master of the internal systems...yet who his teacher in the internal systems was is not mentioned. They also want us to assume that SKTJ learned all these forms of martial arts that existed in the mid/late 19th century, and had time to teach them all to ICM to the point of mastery. When was all this traveling and teaching suposed to occur?
Some people have suggested that maybe ICM did some traveling of his own, undocumented of course, which accounts for the inclusion of many things in our style, and maybe he learned only the core of his style from SKTJ. Of course, we could never know if this is true, because he didn't tell GMT about it. And even if ICM was a master of the internal styles, I find it hard to believe that he learned the 24 posture simplified form created by the Chinese government sports committee in Beijing in 1956. Likewise with Chen Man Ching's 37 posture form, which he created around 1946 in China, to teach later in Taiwan. Maybe ICM knew the 83 posture old frame Chen form, that would make sense...but when and where did GMT learn the other two? Why not tell us that he learned them from someone else, if that's the truth?

Being from Indonesia, maybe it's just the way things are done. Is there less of an emphasis on lineage and ancestors, and more on taking whatever you can find and making it work? Who cares where it came from: a longtime teacher, a seminar, a book, a video, if you're good and can make it work, then it's yours. The important thing is if you can win a fight, not who taught you. If you're strong enough and win enough fights, other people want to know your style, regardless of where it came from. Is that what it's all about? So forget about history and lineage...just make it work.

I'm just trying to figure out the mindset which GMT and his senior students must have about all this. Is it really just about money, and trying to make sure that they're offering as much or more than any other martial arts school/system (at least on paper)? The selling point in some cases I've seen is "We've got everything those other schools have, plus more...we're the most comprehensive, anywhere else you're only getting a tiny portion of what's in our system."

I actually like the content of the system, and wish we just had more information about where it came from and how it should be practiced.

[Baqualin]

Here's why the system pays off and people stick with it:

Chin-na (IMO, too often stressed for the evasion half, not stressed enough as an attacking/wrestling method)
Sparring Techniques--teach you actual fighting-stance techs/combos. Can be really useful and really...really effective if you get 'em down pat and train them on a bag in various ways. I've cleaned up in sparring with them. If you've been around the kung fu circuit even just a little, you'll start to see trapping hands in the techs, chinna, etc. These become your bread and butter,.
Short Forms-Abstract, weird...but they teach you how to move and keep your hands constantly moving. If you chamber after every strike, it looks exactly like a blend of Tan Tui and Lohan forms.
Ippons (Japanese name, I know, but the same 1-2 step techniques you get in most kung fu schools eventually---you just learn them quicker here).
Techniques (We call 'em "Street-fighting techs") which are basic throws, chin-na, and sweeps done in combinations.

These are the foundation of the entire art. If you get good at all of these techniques, you have a foundation in Longfist, practical sparring, basic combos, locks, mild wrestling, etc.

Over time, you see that your forms are predicated on these techniques. You basically practice 1000 ways to do 10 things.

You get frustrated at first, because you can't draw the link between application and forms. You figure it's abstract. Then you begin to get hints of applications--some are off the wall and unrealistic. Then you refine your applications--and they start looking like your techniques/take downs. All of the sudden, you see the interconnectedness in the theory and what you're practicing--you're always working on the first things you learned (listed above).

Then, you practice body movement to refine your ability to execute the techniques and to get into position.

Next step---onto the next rank or style and begin the process all over again. You constantly challenge your body, mind, will--it's a total learning process. If you practice enough to truly progress, you never regress. If you practice twice a week--well, you're probably doing enough to pass to the next level--but you're not making real progression. More often than not, many SD tiger forms look like crane forms, look like mantis forms. Why? Well, you're probably watching a 2-day a week practitioner. There's nothing wrong with that. That's martial arts--they're getting in shape, learning something new. But the base underneath it all probably isn't that solid. I see a lot of 2-day a week practitioners at other schools. Their "style" is just crisper b/c of the focus on one style.

What's funny is that if you practice daily and, say, don't practice one of your forms for a month, but keep it in your head, you'll find it's that much easier, more crisp, and actually better than the last time you practiced it. Not quite as good as it would be if you practiced every day....but still better.

You evetnually realize that you aren't just learning forms. Your body is learning them and applying everything you learned every day you practice. That body memory makes you better every day. Why not practice 1 form, or 1 style every day? You get good at that 1 form--it makes for a fantastic demo....but are you really learning, or are you refining a form? Hit a bag. I can make up a gajillion combos in as many seconds. When I was doing MMA for a while, I found my punches and kicks were pretty ****ed effective. Some of my combos needed tweaking, but I knew I was on the right track.

I have more material than I know what to do with sometimes, but I bet you my basic crane and tiger is pretty friggin' good. And my White Monkey Steals the Peach is my boxing bread and butter. And I can relate every ippon and every technique to at least 20 different forms. Why? Because I know my forms and my body knows what it's doing.

You don't get that in every art, and it's why I think this is a remarkable system. It's adaptable, rarely rigid, and somewhat open to your interpretation. If you want a cool demo---maybe not the art for you. If you want to grow and learn practical fighting---yeah...but it will definitely depend on who's teaching you and their method of teaching.

That last can be a pitfall if certain individuals add their too-deadly for sparring POV on the material, but more often than not--the system's adaptability gives you room to grow. What's funny is that the too-deadly-for-sparring guys absolutely suck when you spar them. Why? Well, they're not trying to kill you or cripple you, so what do they have left?

You have to train practically. Your knee trap isn't just "smash the sucker--he's crippled". Train it as a check on kicks......stuff like that. You'll pretty soon find you can defend yourself effectively on all fronts and apply it in sparring and in fighting.

That's my POV. Not everyone's....just mine.

I've wasted enough time here over the past 2 days. I'll drop by sometime in September...LOL.

Once again very well said!!!!!!!!! Don't stay away so long.....even though I'm curious what you pick up between now and Sept.
BQ

[tattooedmonk]

This is great!! This thread has life again!!!

[Baqualin]

Hey Leto,
I had a long response to your post and the sever here screwed it up.....tired of typing and need to get back to work.....will get back and try later.
BQ

[Judge Pen]

Wookie Said: "Shaolin-Do has no sense of itself. GM Sin's certif. owns up to the origins of his school. His brother--who spent a lot of time in Indonesia--admits to multiple masters...as do other students of Shaolin-Do. Wouldn't you like to know who practiced what, where your forms came from, who the masters were, etc.? Wouldn't you like to know a little more about your art besides GM Sin's stories? STories are fine, but a history is something different. Stories pass on meaning, but history passes on substance."

Very well said and I agree wholeheartedly. I understand KC's perspective and I too like to think that there's truth to some of these tales simply because the nature of Chinese history allows for that hope because it is open and full of holes and contradictions. But I don't know anything above my own experiences, and while I can chose to believe someone's word as credible without cross-reference and peer-reviewed sources etc., we are talking about faith not facts. Sure there are sources out there that allow one to extrapolate a link, but there's still a leap of faith to connect those dots. Especially when we can see inconsistencies that cannot be denied.

My personal belief is that there are connections to shaolin, but not exclusively like is implied. I have heard references to the colleagues in Indonesia and trust that the material that was taught has a variety of origins that are legitimate. We just won't know of them to any certainty. I guess that’s why I take offense when it is dismissed by the cynical and stupid as fake or made-up. Which is frustrating because its hard to point to anything more than my own personal experience (which I trust) to refute the claims.

I really think that much of this is part of the Indonesian culture and part of passing down tales told by his elders, but there's more out there that we could and should know. Many of us have put it together to our own satisfaction, but that doesn't make it right. It just makes it justifiable.

I think at this point the legends are so much larger than the facts that there will never be anything "'official" clearing up some of the criticisms.

Welcome back Wookie.

[kwaichang]

I do not know where you guys got your History of SD from but there are alot of flaws of your versions. I type slowly and do not have time to give my version of the history that I have learned and researched thus far. Just siffice to say that I have complete confidence of the History that I was taught and have learned from GMT. KC

[tattooedmonk]

I do not know where you guys got your History of SD from but there are alot of flaws of your versions. I type slowly and do not have time to give my version of the history that I have learned and researched thus far. Just siffice to say that I have complete confidence of the History that I was taught and have learned from GMT. KC

Are you talking about GMT's lineage or the history of the material absorbed and taught within the art or all of the above?? Most people get the history from the CSC training manual and the websites, not failing to mention ignorant instructors.

Will you site some examples for us , please??

[kwaichang]

Leto above stated " Ok, so Su Kong traveled all over China, learning all the forms of martial arts from everywhere. That isn't really any more clear or sensible. I guess we just need to believe in the fantastic, so that we can achieve the same mythical heights one day, ourselves?" No SKDJ was at the Fukien Temple and absorbed that knowledge, note "I did not say Master" he then traveled to the other 5 temples known, and listed, at that time and absorbed the knowledge there as well This was passed to ICM as he was a student at Fukien prior to the destruction. Also remember that we as a collective whole do not know which Temple in Fukien thehy are speaking of. KC
BTW lets not get into this BS that SD doesnt look like something, else that is irrevelant to the issue.

[goju]

we got are history of sd from the same place sin kwang the did

are arseholes ahahhahahahahhahahahaahhahahaha

[goju]

Leto above stated " Ok, so Su Kong traveled all over China, learning all the forms of martial arts from everywhere. That isn't really any more clear or sensible. I guess we just need to believe in the fantastic, so that we can achieve the same mythical heights one day, ourselves?" No SKDJ was at the Fukien Temple and absorbed that knowledge, note "I did not say Master" he then traveled to the other 5 temples known, and listed, at that time and absorbed the knowledge there as well This was passed to ICM as he was a student at Fukien prior to the destruction. Also remember that we as a collective whole do not know which Temple in Fukien thehy are speaking of. KC
BTW lets not get into this BS that SD doesnt look like something, else that is irrevelant to the issue.

no we should get onto the topic because sd dosnt not resemble south kung fu in the least theres no trapping low kicking etcetc that are characteristics of fukien styles

and now youve all been told different histories by your teachers lol

oh the humanity!!!!!!!!!

[One student]

Think of these points:

Regarding M Hiang "admitting" something, and GMT "not", regarding multiple teachers. I've never heard GMT or anyone else ever say he had only one teacher ever for anything. We know he is also a black belt in judo, so he has told us he had more than one teacher. So to say he has denied what M Hiang has admitted, to my knowledge is not accurate.

And, if someone were to ask me my lineage, I'd have to give my most direct instructor who I studied from up to BB, then his teacher (GMT), then his (ICM), then his (SKTJ). Although I have had at least three or four or more black belt/master level instructors in SD, including both GMT and his brother, kind of horizontally rather than vertically. Saying HIS "teacher" is ICM, doesn't necessarily mean he didn't have others, too. Does anyone know that GMT has actually, explicitly said, he learned everything from ICM and nothing from anyone else? Ive never heard that.

Also, I was never told that "our" Pa Kua (Classical) was THE Pa Kua invented by Tai Hu Chang (or whoever). We were told, he invented "pa kua," and then we were started on a "classical" form of it. I think at first, I didn't know there were other forms of pa kua, not because that was what I was told, but because I didn't know any better. Someone else, who didn't know any better, might in fact imply that the first Classical Pa Kua we were taught was THE ORIGINAL Pa Kua. I don't blame that on GMT. And later, other versions of pa kua come out to supplement the Classical. I've got a book by Dr. Yang Jwing Ming listing tons of different versions and forms and derivatives of the original pa kua. No one ever told me the first one was the original.

Same for tai chi. What others have called "our" tai chi, is clearly not JUST "ours." We were taught the history of tai chi, and then taught a basic common tai chi form. No one ever told me it was the original tai chi form invented by the originator. Then later more tai chi forms are given to us, which is probably wise: the basic common stuff first: Tai Chi 101, before the higher levels.

And the same for other stuff.

And, my most direct teacher told me many times (one of GMT's first students ever), that he knew well there was more to even that pa kua, and tai chi, but as he put it, "Why do the same moves over and over just to get a couple variations?"

And here's something I'm pondering: many imply that GMT goes somewhere, learns a form, and then gives it to us, whether it be from a book or whatever. If it was from another PERSON, why isn't that person blowing the whistle? If it is from a book that anyone can get, where is the book? Does anyone have any text for the four Golden Leopards? How about the Meteor Fist? And as for the tai chi and pa kua, for example, resembling other stuff that is basic and readily available, eventually, what is to say that doesn't mean they have that common thread to another source? I'm not ready to say it does or it doesn't, I'm just not ready to assume the worst.

Also, I remember, when for example we were first taught The Five Direction Palm and the Connecting Fist and the four Black Tigers and the Kwan Tao, the three White Crane, even the three Birds from M H, we were told to now go out and teach them to others. I hope that didn't cheapen those I taught it to, because they didn't get it from the source. Yes, I'd rather have learned it from GMT, or MH, and I have been fortunate to do so. Heck, if I had my wish I'd go back in time and beg ICM to teach it to me, or lets go really wild, from SK or the Temple myself. But none of us can do that, so we get what we can from who we can, and hopefully the best we can.

So, acknowledging that GMT knows a lot more about martial arts and fighting than I ever will, if he learns something from anywhere, and is then willing to pass some of it on to me, good for me.

Ok, so there could be a moral problem if in fact he says and the student believes it is something he learned only from ICM who only learned it from SKTJ who only learned it inside a Temple in China. But I don't accept that is what I have been told about any particular form or system, although that is probably true for some of it. Although 1 + 1 = 2, some people insist on making it 3.

And I have had at least five other teachers in five other systems -- TKD, Judo, ninjitsu, Karate (kind of, it was a hybrid system "made up" by its local master, from a combination of karate, Kempo, and kung fu), and also a traditional kung fu system. In some of those schools, I knew who the teacher's teacher was, in some cases met them, in some not. Some I can't say I knew or asked or cared. Maybe naive, but I wanted to know, "What do you have, and what can you teach me?" And like with SD, those questions were answered. Even if others were not.

[kwaichang]

Go Ju I dont know what you were taught but there is more than one low kick and leg check in beginning SD I still dont know where you are coming from with all this. If I dont know what you were taught then I cant show or tell you how I was taught. Likewise Our TigerCrane form is very similar to what I was taught in 1975 by my 1st Sifu. And no he wasnt SD Likewise the Tang Lang that I was taught at SD was and is of the same family of Tang Lang form namely the Bang Bu Chien that I was taught by my 1st Sifu and he was very very "legit". Many like to say that I and others dont know what real Chinese MA looks like but I know different. I did not want to get into a stupid argument because if you judge an art by the lower level outside appearance then you will often be mistaken. Also I would like to add that the ST was a place of refuge for many X military in china and others seeking a different way of life so not all forms that are from the temples were created IN the Temples but were brought there by others then adopted by the temples respectively Heck even WU Dang has a Tai Chi Form KC

[One student]

Anyone torture themselves enough to watch "Deadliest Warriors" on SPIKE? Show pits one "deadly warrior" from history against another, and are "tested" by physics, computers, military, and medical experts as to who is "deadliest" by simulated combats -- some dramatized. Use the weapons against gel torsos, clay pots filled with fake blood, etc.

Samples: Green Berets vs Spetnaz; pirates vs. knights; tonight, Yakuza vs. Mafia.

Last night: Shaoliin Monk vs. Mouri (some pacific island warrior culture I've never heard of). Tested hook swords, staff, chain whip, Emei piercers, vs various clubs and spears, etc. Computer say, Shaolin won 68 % of the time.

Now thats entertainment!

[Leto]

Think of these points:

Regarding M Hiang "admitting" something, and GMT "not", regarding multiple teachers. I've never heard GMT or anyone else ever say he had only one teacher ever for anything. We know he is also a black belt in judo, so he has told us he had more than one teacher. So to say he has denied what M Hiang has admitted, to my knowledge is not accurate.

If GMT had more than one teacher, does anyone know who they were? If he did, then this means our lineage is not exactly GMT-ICM-SKTJ. Some of the material did not come from SKTJ, and some of it likely didn't come from ICM either. Has anyone ever asked GMT questions about where the different forms came from? If he never offered more detailed information, by omission he is implying that it all came from the only teacher he has ever admitted to having. Even if he didn't give great detail, but just said something like "I learned this form on my last trip to Bandung, and I want you guys to learn it.", that would at least be something. Has this ever happened?
Now, I can't figure what the motive would be to maintaining such a lie...except to start telling a different story would be admitting to having misled his original students (who maybe didn't care or want to know more detail about their lineage, they just loved the training, but still...). It's also a sticky situation for a student, you don't just go around questioning the information your teacher gives you, it could be considered disrespectful. Could it be that GM The would be happy to be totally upfront about everything, and give more detail about all his teachers, but no one has ever actually asked him, out of fear it would be considered disrespectful?
It may not have been blatantly stated that the classical bagua form we learned is the original form of dong hai chuan, but we certainly were not told the actual origin of the forms we were taught. Again, omission. For all we knew, the forms might have been invented by Su Kong, or Ie Chang Ming, or GM The himself. When we start seeing other schools practicing similar or identical material (or see it in a book), it's natural to say "hey, where did they learn that?"...and then all the questions begin.
I don't think everything that GMT teaches is from books, at least I really really hope not. But some of the forms that are in our system have definately been published. I've got a translated edition of Jiang Rong Qiao's classical baguazhang on pdf.
It may not be important to everyone, but I'd like to be able to tell people what I practice and where it comes from. Right now, I can only guess beyond that everything came from the Chinese immigrant community in Bandung, collectively.
Maybe if we ask enough times someone who knows something will offer some more information.

[kwaichang]

QUOTE "but we certainly were not told the actual origin of the forms we were taught. Again, omission. For all we knew, the forms might have been invented by Su Kong, or Ie Chang Ming, or GM The himself. " I just looked at my notes of the history of Liu Hsing. There are 2 full hand written pages containing the history and origin and where it came from. Some of the lesser forms GMT may not be sure of where they originated so he doesnt bother. But most likely if you asked he would tell you. I feel it isnt enough to say the Black Tiger Forms are from the SDhang Tung area or temple everyone seems to want more and more. KC