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 863 of 1323 FirstFirst ... 363763813853861862863864865873913963 ... LastLast
Results 12,931 to 12,945 of 19831

Thread: Is Shaolin-Do for real?

  1. #12931
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Knoxville Tennessee
    Posts
    5,512
    Quote Originally Posted by Leto View Post
    Why don't we just say, once and for all, that SD and CSC teach a kuntao style from Indonesia, which has its roots in the styles taught by Chinese immigrants to Bandung in Western Java.
    It looks different and has different methods from mainland and Taiwan Chinese styles because it was geographically seperated, and influenced by elements of the local styles and culture, as well as blending elements of several Chinese styles which were taught together instead of as seperate disciplines.
    Compound this with inadequate or hasty instruction for a large number of students, some of whom go on to become instructors themselves, and you end up with something that just looks like a mess. But there are elements of the system which are worthwhile, even if it isn't a "pure" Chinese martial art.
    If one were to take a step back, ensure solid training of fundamentals, and re-focus the curriculum on a core set of forms (not trying to teach over a hundred of them in the course of a few short years), that system would produce more solid martial artists who could be proud of their style and their skills.
    If we tell the truth, as best we know it, about the origins of the style and the forms, it will lead to fewer questions down the road. Myths and legends are still fun stories to tell, but don't let students confuse them for factual occurrences.

    I say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a core of a good style here, if the focus could just be shifted.
    Perfect summation of this thread. If only the elders of SD would agree to see it this way.
    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.

  2. #12932
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Austin, Tx
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by Leto View Post
    Why don't we just say, once and for all, that SD and CSC teach a kuntao style from Indonesia, which has its roots in the styles taught by Chinese immigrants to Bandung in Western Java.
    It looks different and has different methods from mainland and Taiwan Chinese styles because it was geographically seperated, and influenced by elements of the local styles and culture, as well as blending elements of several Chinese styles which were taught together instead of as seperate disciplines.
    Compound this with inadequate or hasty instruction for a large number of students, some of whom go on to become instructors themselves, and you end up with something that just looks like a mess. But there are elements of the system which are worthwhile, even if it isn't a "pure" Chinese martial art.
    If one were to take a step back, ensure solid training of fundamentals, and re-focus the curriculum on a core set of forms (not trying to teach over a hundred of them in the course of a few short years), that system would produce more solid martial artists who could be proud of their style and their skills.
    If we tell the truth, as best we know it, about the origins of the style and the forms, it will lead to fewer questions down the road. Myths and legends are still fun stories to tell, but don't let students confuse them for factual occurrences.

    I say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a core of a good style here, if the focus could just be shifted.
    I agree as well. There are effective techniques and good fighters among the SD bunch. I think it is the claim that they are teaching Shaolin Kung Fu that is what rubs everyone the wrong way. I bought all of that crap hook, line and sinker when I was with them too. But I always thought the legends that were told sounded a little Shaw Brothers. After I left and started training with my current Master and going to CMA tournaments I got a great exposure to what CMA is out there, both southern and northern, internal and external. SD did not even slightly resemble any of it. I think they would be better off to drop the Shaolin and call themselves an Indonesian Art.

  3. #12933
    Quote Originally Posted by sha0lin1 View Post
    I agree as well. There are effective techniques and good fighters among the SD bunch. I think it is the claim that they are teaching Shaolin Kung Fu that is what rubs everyone the wrong way. I bought all of that crap hook, line and sinker when I was with them too. But I always thought the legends that were told sounded a little Shaw Brothers. After I left and started training with my current Master and going to CMA tournaments I got a great exposure to what CMA is out there, both southern and northern, internal and external. SD did not even slightly resemble any of it. I think they would be better off to drop the Shaolin and call themselves an Indonesian Art.
    Once again ...didnt even slightly resemble any of it....???

    What seems to be the problem with calling it Shaolin ??

    Its just a name.

    a label

    BFD

    You can call it "Dog $h!t on my lawn" for all I care

    Its people that have this attitude, that think they know what shaolin is and what it is not that really turn me off from spending anytime with other CMA artists.

    F#king elitists

    ...I know what the flavor of CMA is, I know what it is "supposed "to look like but I have to say that most of the CMA that I have seen is completely useless in a real fight.

    It may look pretty, but F#cking useless!

    SD is a branch of a large tree that because of its migration and geographical location took on a different form.

    What is everyones problem with that???

    I do not call it Kung Fu or Karate ... Its just Shaolin Martial Arts everyone has this big issue with it being called kung fu or Karate ....... once again another F#CKING label.

    Next you will be saying that because the Vietnamese, Japanese, etc. versions of Shaolin are not done the same wayyou think they should be done that they are not shaolin either ,right??


    Get over yourself.....Shut up and go train!!

    Yeah , lets just drop a name that has been used for over how many years just to satisfy all of you!!! Oy Vey
    Last edited by tattooedmonk; 10-08-2009 at 07:37 AM.

  4. #12934
    Quote Originally Posted by Leto View Post
    Why don't we just say, once and for all, that SD and CSC teach a kuntao style from Indonesia, which has its roots in the styles taught by Chinese immigrants to Bandung in Western Java.
    It looks different and has different methods from mainland and Taiwan Chinese styles because it was geographically seperated, and influenced by elements of the local styles and culture, as well as blending elements of several Chinese styles which were taught together instead of as seperate disciplines.
    Compound this with inadequate or hasty instruction for a large number of students, some of whom go on to become instructors themselves, and you end up with something that just looks like a mess. But there are elements of the system which are worthwhile, even if it isn't a "pure" Chinese martial art.
    If one were to take a step back, ensure solid training of fundamentals, and re-focus the curriculum on a core set of forms (not trying to teach over a hundred of them in the course of a few short years), that system would produce more solid martial artists who could be proud of their style and their skills.
    If we tell the truth, as best we know it, about the origins of the style and the forms, it will lead to fewer questions down the road. Myths and legends are still fun stories to tell, but don't let students confuse them for factual occurrences.

    I say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a core of a good style here, if the focus could just be shifted.
    Great post , I am right here with you , brother. Now do you have any problem with using the name " Shaolin"???

  5. #12935
    [QUOTE=brucereiter;963148]
    Quote Originally Posted by sha0lin1 View Post

    interesting that you say that. as it brings up a very important point about shaolin do. there are many variations of it(even here in atlanta among people who learned side by side)... the 2 forms you commented on are what i was taught by gary grooms and are what i taught at the csc in atlanta.
    Seeing as Yang came from Chen , to me, it stands to reason that there would be some over lap.
    from what I understand MGG is an excellent Tai Chi player and knows whats what.

    I do have to admit because most people do not spend the time to really study learn and practice the material it all looks the same .

    Your tiger should not look like preying mantis and your Hua should not look like whatever....

    Bruce , I like what you are doing . It is amazing how far you have come in a short period of time ...THats real KUNG FU!!!

  6. #12936

    Yeah ... so what???

    I am on one today... I had this guy watch me train yesterday and he said to me, " I like your style, what martial art style is that" I told him that it was CMA . He said "it cant be because you wearing a GI , a Japanese uniform.......

  7. #12937
    Quote Originally Posted by sha0lin1 View Post
    SD did not even slightly resemble any of it. I think they would be better off to drop the Shaolin and call themselves an Indonesian Art.
    but just a few posts ago you said that video looked like yang tai chi and chen tai chi. that is what i was taught in sd ... you seem to be saying 2 different things adn one of them seems to be an absolute that is simply incorrect. i think what you really mean is that among the sd group some of them really suck.
    best,

    bruce

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

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

  8. #12938
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Knoxville Tennessee
    Posts
    5,512
    I have no problem calling it shaolin-do because kung tao is an Indonesian blending of CMA with other arts. It's origin is Chinese but it is now something somewhat different. Shorin ryu's name is very similar but it is not shaolin anymore although it claims to once have been.
    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.

  9. #12939
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    right there
    Posts
    3,235
    because shaolin is alot more than a martial art its away of life and its tied in with religion which makes it wrong to claim something is shaolin when it is not!!!

    how many mother ****in times do i have to repeat myself

    I am pork boy, the breakfast monkey.

    left leg: mild bruising. right leg: charley horse

    handsomerest member of KFM forum hands down

  10. #12940
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Midgard
    Posts
    10,856
    i dont have any personal SD physical experience.

    however, to claim something is 'shaolin' is different than claiming something is 'shaolin martial art'

    two different things

    i cant remember what video, i think it was shi deyang that said something along the lines of: (Not direct quote, but same message)

    the essence of shaolin martial art is adaption and evolution. if you take your shaolin martial art to another region and give the material to the people there, after time you will see a change take place in the material you taught. the shaolin martial art is going to resemble and blend with the local boxing methods. the shaolin methods will be an addition to what is currently being done in that region.

    after all, shaolin martial arts is a massive blend of material worked and worked and worked for generations in a 'melting pot' so to speak.

    this is really just a truth of martial arts and cross training. also the easy explination why karate and kungfu are similar yet distinctly different. the Japanese made the art their own.

    for example, what if you teach shaolin martial art to 10 large 6ft 200lb norwegians, vs 10 smaller 150lb chinese people.

    the end results will be similar, yet distinctly different.
    Last edited by Lucas; 10-08-2009 at 12:49 PM.
    For whoso comes amongst many shall one day find that no one man is by so far the mightiest of all.

  11. #12941
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucas View Post
    i dont have any personal SD physical experience.

    however, to claim something is 'shaolin' is different than claiming something is 'shaolin martial art'

    two different things

    i cant remember what video, i think it was shi deyang that said something along the lines of: (Not direct quote, but same message)

    the essence of shaolin martial art is adaption and evolution. if you take your shaolin martial art to another region and give the material to the people there, after time you will see a change take place in the material you taught. the shaolin martial art is going to resemble and blend with the local boxing methods. the shaolin methods will be an addition to what is currently being done in that region.

    after all, shaolin martial arts is a massive blend of material worked and worked and worked for generations in a 'melting pot' so to speak.

    this is really just a truth of martial arts and cross training. also the easy explination why karate and kungfu are similar yet distinctly different. the Japanese made the art their own.

    for example, what if you teach shaolin martial art to 10 large 6ft 200lb norwegians, vs 10 smaller 150lb chinese people.

    the end results will be similar, yet distinctly different.
    Perfect , thanks!!!

  12. #12942

  13. #12943
    Also, it's funny how people talk about there style is the "true" Kung Fu..whatever.

    I believe if we were to get in a time machine and go back 300 years we would see very differents forms than what we do today no matter what style we practice.

    Honest to god, so much as happened in China, I doubt we have anything other than a few notes and legends about what went on even a 100 years ago.

  14. #12944
    Quote Originally Posted by tattooedmonk View Post
    from what I understand MGG is an excellent Tai Chi player and knows whats what.
    i really think gary grooms is a good tai chi chuan teacher. i have learned a lot from him. i have had difference of opinion about hsing i with him but he was and is open to change and other ideas as long as you are not just parroting what you read in a book or what ever. as long as you are speaking to him from personal and practical knowledge he will listen and respect what ever you have to say even if he does not agree.


    Quote Originally Posted by tattooedmonk View Post
    Bruce , I like what you are doing . It is amazing how far you have come in a short period of time ...THats real KUNG FU!!!
    thank you. lots of fun and hard work. and **** one of the biggest things i have learned in recent years is just when you think "i know this" you find out there is even more to learn and understand.
    best,

    bruce

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

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

  15. #12945
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Arrakis
    Posts
    322
    Exactly, everyone thinks their style is the one and only "true" shaolin style. No doubt Sin The's teachers beleived this, too, when they left China, and he still believes it now.
    I don't have a problem using the name Shaolin, because so many different styles do already. They have shaolin style in Vietnam, they use the Vietnamese word for it, thieu lam. Shorin is the Japanese pronounciation of Shaolin used to describe an Okinawan style. We all know that many, many styles describe themselves as shaolin, and almost none of them teach or follow a strict Buddhist philosophy as temple monks do, and most don't look anything like what is taught in the temple now. What has to stop is saying "the one and only authentic shaolin martial art, taught by the one true shaolin grand master". That's ridiculous.
    Of course, the internal arts aren't "shaolin" by anyone's definition, and they're a part of the system as well (though it is probable that taijiquan has its origins in shaolin longfist). To heck with it, it's just a name. Maybe the internal arts weren't developed or practiced at the shaolin temple, but they're a part of this kuntao style, which was apparently called "shaolin" in Indonesia.
    Whatever people call it, I just think that the fact that the art has come through Indonesia, and changed there, shouldn't be passed over like a footnote. It's the identity of the style, whether Sin The wants to deny it or not. It's something to be proud of, not hidden. Of course, to someone who's ethnic heritage was persecuted in Indonesia, being from Indonesia may not be something to be proud of. I can see why they may not want to give their home country any credit, or identify themselves or their style as Indonesian. But regardless of family and ethnic pride, it's the truth.

    Indonesian Shaolin kung fu? Shaolin kuntao? Shaolin tao? Sin The's butt kickin' kentucky karotty? I don't really care so long as we tell the truth about where it comes from. and keep the training "real".
    "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udun! Go back to the shadow, you cannot pass!"

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
  •