View Poll Results: What to do about the 'Is Shaolin-Do for real?' thread

Voters
57. You may not vote on this poll
  • Unlock IS-Dfr. Merge all S-D threads together so it clears 1000 posts!

    22 38.60%
  • Unlock IS-Dfr. Let all the S-D threads stand independently.

    13 22.81%
  • Keep IS-Dfr locked down. All IS-Dfr posters deserved to be punished.

    5 8.77%
  • Delete them all. Let Yama sort them out.

    17 29.82%
Page 821 of 1335 FirstFirst ... 3217217718118198208218228238318719211321 ... LastLast
Results 12,301 to 12,315 of 20011

Thread: Is Shaolin-Do for real?

  1. #12301
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Permanent state of Denial
    Posts
    2,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Baqualin View Post
    By the way in 35 years I've never seen GM Sin in a sam
    LOL.....not even in ATlanta. Always the gi.

    But, considering that the art wasn't necessarily "Shaolin-Do" until he marketed it as such in the US, teh question is something along the lines of:

    What came first, the chicken or the egg?

    SD is more traditional from the SD/1940's-70's indonesian standpoint, and from GMSKT's POV, ST from the Chinese root. It's a decision to honor your teacher's POV, or to honor the truest root of the art (the higher master, if you want to call it that). No dishonor is done either way, IMO.

    I don't think you can honor both equally from the SD standpoint, since SD was designed to "masquerade" as a Japanese art by hiding its roots. It's really pick and choose. If you honor the "masquerade" as a tradition, rather than a quick-fix, temporary thing, it's not the same as honoring the Shaolin/Chinese MA root. After all, most of what we do isn't Shaolin--it's just general Chinese stuff. Even our meditation is the same as Chan--I go to a Chan monastery(Dhama Jewel) here in ATL. Same meditation techs as Ho Tien Chi, just with more variation in breathing--Shen Tien Chi, etc. Even so, considering that the art was, in the closest approximation to reality, the byproduct of some Chinese immigrants working together like a Malaysian Chin Woo Assoc., blending this and that, it's difficult to really choose sides.

    The way I see it, if you pick one or the other, you're still buying into a small part of teh big picture. The history needs a dose of practicality.

    I don't have a bone to pick either way, but I can see why people pick and choose the traditions.

    They don't appear to gel very well from a logical standpoint.

  2. #12302

    Sw...

    this is exactly on the line of what I was thinking, you beat me to the punch.
    Last edited by tattooedmonk; 07-09-2009 at 10:19 AM.

  3. #12303
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Permanent state of Denial
    Posts
    2,272
    Quote Originally Posted by tattooedmonk View Post
    Do any of you believe/ think SD is a hybrid art?

    Do you believe that the art as it was developing was influenced by other asian arts??

    If so or if not , what did or did nt influence it??
    No. and Yes.

    If history has taught us anything, it's that no art, be it martial, visual, musical, performance, can ever escape cultural influences, especially in a third world melting pot like mid 20th C. Indonesia. Traditional CMA has been irreparably changed by the advent of contemporary wushu, since "looks" have become a standard criterion for skill. I rarely see an old, very traditional non-SD master do a form that I'd call "pretty" where he's stressing practicality. It has a different kind of beauty--that of simplicity, effectiveness, etc. Look at Brendan Lai, then look at some modern sevenstar teachers. There's a huge gulf between them. Lai was a badass; contemproary-traditional sevenstar teachers, they've got the look of the mantis, but no mantis striking/fighting ability. And you can see it in how they perform, and in how they talk about their techs.

    Sure, the Indon. school was all CHinese, but the Japanese influence, even as a cover, did influence the art. GGM IE was well-traveled, so I'm positive he wasn't doing pure CMA by any means. CMA itself is a cultural melting pot, since teh coutnry wasn't 100% Chinese. Different tribes, languages, etc. Our 30 short forms are a blend of Shuai Jiao techs, Tan Tui, and Lohan. We can see it all in the postures and apps. Even as such, it's none of those arts.

    GM The' was active in the 60's-70's Karate community. I'm sure that changed his perspective some, and I know it has to have changed some of his practices, even if we aren't aware yet, or won't acknowledge it.

    We have basic brownbelt forms Lian Wu Zhang and Jie Quan (Chie Chien), which comprise the basic curriculums of established arts (Jie Quan, anyways). Our Jie Quan is not Chin Woo's, Chin Woo's isnt' the Ying Jow Pai form exactly. Ours is more in keeping with our short forms, but they have the same basic model or pattern (look at kick/sweep sequences, spinning smash kicks, circles, bows, etc.). The only dude I know of that taught Lian Wu Zhang was the Tiawanese master Su Ke Gang, and his form is just as circular. He pushes with one hand on his back sweeps (like we do in street fight tech #2), while we do more of the Shuai Jiao traingle backsweep I posted a few pages earlier. But teh same basic princples, even if the forms are different. We do a Tiawanese Yang Short Form (CMChing's); so a lot of our material is non-Chinese geographically, but Chinese MA based. It's teh Malaysian CMA, not mainland CMA. Not karatiefied to the point of Vovinam, or something. Just not completely mainland.

    I kind of like that, since much of CMA is kind of foofy. But that's just my opinion. Doesn't mean much.

  4. #12304
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Permanent state of Denial
    Posts
    2,272
    I've seen SD forms white-black firsthand. They're not Shaolin-Tao's move-for-move.

    We might as well say that SD has a significant American influence, as well.

    Shoot, I've been studying capoeira, BJJ, some Okinawan Karate, and various CMA's. So what the hell is my SD? LOFL............

  5. #12305
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie View Post
    LOL.....not even in ATlanta. Always the gi.
    http://picasaweb.google.com/brucerei...05192667370562

    http://picasaweb.google.com/brucerei...05196402431810
    http://picasaweb.google.com/brucerei...05196402431810

    http://picasaweb.google.com/brucerei...05208838199490

    here are a few pictures of sin the and bill leonard. note the cheng man ching type of clothing ... why was he wearing this instead of the gi?
    best,

    bruce

    Happy indeed we live,
    friendly amidst the hostile.
    Amidst hostile men
    we dwell free from hatred.

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

  6. #12306
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Southeast (Kentucky)
    Posts
    173
    That is the robe GMS always wore when he taught Tai Chi. He wore it over his Gi. It was made of a fuzzy, felt like material.

  7. #12307
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie View Post
    I've seen SD forms white-black firsthand. They're not Shaolin-Tao's move-for-move.

    We might as well say that SD has a significant American influence, as well.

    Shoot, I've been studying capoeira, BJJ, some Okinawan Karate, and various CMA's. So what the hell is my SD? LOFL............
    What do you see being the difference between the two??

    The art you practice , like you said , is now your own. all the things that make you who you are is what makes it different than what everyone else does, no matter who your teacher is , west coast east coast or SD / CSC/ ST.

  8. #12308
    Quote Originally Posted by OldandUsed View Post
    That is the robe GMS always wore when he taught Tai Chi. He wore it over his Gi. It was made of a fuzzy, felt like material.
    Must have been hot as he-l-l !!

  9. #12309
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie View Post
    No. and Yes.

    If history has taught us anything, it's that no art, be it martial, visual, musical, performance, can ever escape cultural influences, especially in a third world melting pot like mid 20th C. Indonesia. Traditional CMA has been irreparably changed by the advent of contemporary wushu, since "looks" have become a standard criterion for skill. I rarely see an old, very traditional non-SD master do a form that I'd call "pretty" where he's stressing practicality. It has a different kind of beauty--that of simplicity, effectiveness, etc. Look at Brendan Lai, then look at some modern sevenstar teachers. There's a huge gulf between them. Lai was a badass; contemproary-traditional sevenstar teachers, they've got the look of the mantis, but no mantis striking/fighting ability. And you can see it in how they perform, and in how they talk about their techs.

    Sure, the Indon. school was all CHinese, but the Japanese influence, even as a cover, did influence the art. GGM IE was well-traveled, so I'm positive he wasn't doing pure CMA by any means. CMA itself is a cultural melting pot, since teh coutnry wasn't 100% Chinese. Different tribes, languages, etc. Our 30 short forms are a blend of Shuai Jiao techs, Tan Tui, and Lohan. We can see it all in the postures and apps. Even as such, it's none of those arts.

    GM The' was active in the 60's-70's Karate community. I'm sure that changed his perspective some, and I know it has to have changed some of his practices, even if we aren't aware yet, or won't acknowledge it.

    We have basic brownbelt forms Lian Wu Zhang and Jie Quan (Chie Chien), which comprise the basic curriculums of established arts (Jie Quan, anyways). Our Jie Quan is not Chin Woo's, Chin Woo's isnt' the Ying Jow Pai form exactly. Ours is more in keeping with our short forms, but they have the same basic model or pattern (look at kick/sweep sequences, spinning smash kicks, circles, bows, etc.). The only dude I know of that taught Lian Wu Zhang was the Tiawanese master Su Ke Gang, and his form is just as circular. He pushes with one hand on his back sweeps (like we do in street fight tech #2), while we do more of the Shuai Jiao traingle backsweep I posted a few pages earlier. But teh same basic princples, even if the forms are different. We do a Tiawanese Yang Short Form (CMChing's); so a lot of our material is non-Chinese geographically, but Chinese MA based. It's teh Malaysian CMA, not mainland CMA. Not karatiefied to the point of Vovinam, or something. Just not completely mainland.

    I kind of like that, since much of CMA is kind of foofy. But that's just my opinion. Doesn't mean much.
    Right on time with this breakdown. I agree with you for the most part.

  10. #12310

    Uummm

    Quote Originally Posted by OTD View Post
    Bruce
    I am suprised SMG would even let you have a copy of the Tai Chi 64 fighting applications???
    OTD
    .......Why??

  11. #12311
    Quote Originally Posted by brucereiter View Post
    http://picasaweb.google.com/brucerei...05192667370562

    http://picasaweb.google.com/brucerei...05196402431810
    http://picasaweb.google.com/brucerei...05196402431810

    http://picasaweb.google.com/brucerei...05208838199490

    here are a few pictures of sin the and bill leonard. note the cheng man ching type of clothing ... why was he wearing this instead of the gi?
    cool picks, Bruce!!

  12. #12312
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by OldandUsed View Post
    That is the robe GMS always wore when he taught Tai Chi. He wore it over his Gi. It was made of a fuzzy, felt like material.
    The first time I saw him in the robe was in the early 70's......he demo'd Iron Man (Buell Armory) before he taught it to us........it was an experience I still remember.
    BQ

  13. #12313
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Southeast (Kentucky)
    Posts
    173
    Man, you are going way back!

  14. #12314
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Permanent state of Denial
    Posts
    2,272
    Quote Originally Posted by tattooedmonk View Post
    What do you see being the difference between the two??

    .
    SD has "striker-itis" in its applications, which thereby gives the form less flow. That's not a bad thing, necessarily. Nor is it a great thing. Many of the scissor-step motions are interpreted as knee traps----which all scissor steps can be interpreted as, on some level---at the cost of lateral movement flow and fluid footwork. Some of the short forms differ. Not many, but some. Also, some of the techniques are different. Dude did street tech #8 from a gi grab position. I shrugged, said "I can work with that", barely modified our #8, and did it just as well...LOL.

    Some of the forms use slightly different stances...no big deal. Apps are mostly the same anyways, although I think ST has more emphasis on sweeps, throws, locks. Just MO based on what I've seen. Coupla' different strikes here and there. But they are mapped on the same footwork.

    I don't think it's that big of a difference. The difference is, as I see it, ST seems to have integrated Shaolin/Tai CHi philosophies to maximize a sense of flow. SD keeps them more separate.

    Granted, when people rush through the internal or external program in ST, it all turns to mush. I've been doing Yang Tai CHi for 4 years, and I'm still a green sash--and it's not because I suck...LOL. I know that much. I'm a first degree black belt after 5 years, and I practice every day. Tai Chi 64 every day, now chen 18 & Pakua every day (for the past 8-10 months). They're too complicated and nuanced to move on to something new without it turningto mush, you know? If you want to get good at the art, you have to slow your roll. You have to know the difference in striking/stragegy/flow/characteristics between Shaolin bird and Lian Wu Zhang. Or between Chin Gung Fu Hu Chien and Chie Chien. That takes time, and I'm glad I've taken it.

    What's funny is that new students see me in their internal class, wearing my 1st degree, doing pretty good tai chi, and they assume I'm there to help teach. Sometimes Brown sashes ask me for tips when they've been studing 1/5 the amount of time I've been studying, and I chuckle and say---dude, you outrank me. Shouldn't I be the one asking you for tips? The answer is no, of course I shouldn't.

    Sometimes it's annoying to have someone you know doesn't practice that much taht moves up each time rank advancement is available try to give me tips on stuff I "KNOW" rather than just "REMEMBER." But I'm trying to get over my ego. That's my test. I'm getting better at it, but I've still got quite an ego at times. I can see, though, on a larger scale, why some people might have issues with other students (say, on teh political scale) based on that same tension.......but if we're willing to get over ourselves, it's not that big of a deal. But if franchising, etc. is put into the mix, on a financial scale, I can see why there's divides.

    So I'll test for black sash sometime around 2012, LOL. Yin Yang Dagger is coming around for the third time for me this year. Who knows, maybe I'll actually enjoy that wretched form this time

  15. #12315
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Knoxville Tennessee
    Posts
    5,520
    SW, I think many teachers have "striker-itis" but I don't think its the art, just how most teach it. I belive most of the techniques that are taught can bei either a strike or a lock depending on the need. but you are right, most of the time it seems only the strikes are shown.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oso View Post
    AND, yea, a good bit of it is about whether you can fight with what you know...kinda all of it is about that.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •