Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[kungfujunky]

There's different heights depending how deep your stances are.
Like in Bagua Zhang, there is high, middle, and low basins.

Plus, he's not actually leaning, there's a direct line from his heel to his head, his totally rooted.
SD doesn't understand these things, hence they don't teach it.

Also, depends on when and where the Yang comes from. Yang from Yang Lu Chan's home village is older (more like Wu taiji, who were Yang Lu Chan's first students) and before it was modified for the Manchurians in Beijing.

Regardless of angle or height, the movements are all done correct, regardless of sub-style or variations. All the rules of Taiji, that make it work in the first place, are never broken.

Check out that guys channel on YouTube, he has dozen's of videos of all the most well known and best Taiji teaches from the past, you can see that regardless of style or sub-style none of the fundamentals are ever broken.

Im sorry but after watching the video you are wrong. This guy is focused to much on his low stance work then the actual martial aspect of tai chi. He is leaning to far forward consistently. if he were to do push hands with anyone that understands the basics of rooting he would end up on his ass.

Sal you are a windbag and a pompous old man. You have yet to back up anything you have stated except to keep blowing smoke.

pfftt. glad i havent been paying attention to this thread for a while. back to training

[arinathos.valin]

Q: How many tai chi masters does it take to change a light bulb?

A: 11... one to change the light bulb, and ten to stand around and say he's doing it wrong...

From my own perspective as an ex-SDer...I can remember being exposed to Chen Tai Chi concepts of ground path, peng, spiralling, and full body motion and being pretty stunned at what I was missing. I also remember watching a version of Jiang Bagua on youtube that left me flabbergasted about what was missing in my own form from SD.

Having said that, the internal forms I learned at SD allowed me to retool what I had learned a lot faster than if I was starting from scratch, and in an indirect way, the training I received allowed me to pick up on some of the things that I WAS missing in my training. I'll always be grateful to SD for that, at least.

I remember posting a while back (make that a few hundred pages back) that some people are very indignant with SD because they make claims about authenticity that these people feel SD has no right to make. If you're teaching what you believe is the real thing, and someone comes along with a substandard product, you're gonna get hot under the collar about it if you have any passion for what you're doing. Although that post pertained to someone else, I think Sal falls in that same category.

Sal is obviously skilled, and knows his stuff, but I can't help think that ego is driving him as well. After all, he's already said his piece, and has said that 'he doesn't care', but he still keeps coming back. He's already asked questions on CMA multiple times, but doesn't give the answers. He's not trying to educate you guys... he just keeps using that question to hit you guys over the head with it... and it makes him feel superior in the process that you STILL don't know the answer.

I disagree with Sal about Cheng Man Ching...Robert Smith holds CMC in the highest regard, and he wasn't afraid of calling BS when he sees it. In addition, Nigel Sutton in his book Searching for the Way talks about his teachers in Singapore who were disciples of CMC, and he has no doubts about the efficacy of Cheng style in a fighting situation, based on his experiences with them.

Cheng did things differently than his predecessors. Does that make it bad? If you're judging strictly by standards of Yang style, I suppose that one could make the argument that he wasn't that good. My impression is that he took the Yang style and adapted it to his own strengths... namely an extraordinary sensitivity to movement and balance, and yielding. The resulting style was something that he was extremely good at, and if Nigel Sutton is to be believed, other people have agreed with him.

All of the different offshoots of tai chi (Yang, Wu, Sun) and bagua (Gao, Cheng, etc) come from a base set of moves that are then adapted by particular people for their own strengths and weaknesses. They then become different styles. One style isn't necessarily better than another, but one style may be better for an individual person, based on their own physical gifts and talents. If you're grading another style based on the precepts of your own, you might find that other style inferior... but then practitioners of that other style may be trying to do different things with their own bodies that you're not taking into account.

To a certain extent, though, I take Sal's point. If you combine different principles from different fighting arts, you don't necessarily get the best synthesis. Bruce's youtube clip on M. Grooms explanation of brush knee is a case in point. I see a lot of hip twisting, forward motion of the body, and driving of the legs, but I've also been on the receiving end of a brush knee 'push' that felt like I'd been hit by a truck... and the person doing it had very different internal body mechanics that didn't involve the large gross motor movements of the arms and legs. Sal may be saying that the combination of styles in SD make for inferior body mechanics because those principles aren't acting in conjunction with one another.

[brucereiter]

the yang tai chi i was taught at sd would point to it be lifted off of a book

they had us do really loud inhaling exhaling( which ive never seen any noteworthy tai chi master do ) they didnt show us any of the principles behind tai chi they just had us do the forms and even then they were done way too fast

i have seen some very poor tai chi chuan from the soards schools so i am not surprised.

[tattooedmonk]

here's some more answers to the questions, from another forum


1- what is the major tenet in common with all chinese martial arts cma)?

Well they all come from china, they all have (to varying degrees) kicking, punching, qinna and shuaijiao

2 - what is the main strategic points of cma?

To render the other guy incapable of fighting

3 - what are the main important body mechanics rules of cma?

Different styles, different rules (if there are actually any rules that is) also ima is different form ema

first, a dicussion of mechanics was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so i must say nothing. And secondly, you must be a cma person for the rules to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the rules are more what you'd call guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome to cma


4 - what is the most important things to note about cma footwork? Please tell me:

It varies form style to style.

Bagua is not like xingyiquan which is not like taiji which is not like shaolin which is not like wing chun which is not like sanshou.



1- my 'insert style' is better than yours.
2- same universal strategery found in all martial arts. ;-)
3- move from dan tien & keep body alignment.
4- each style has different footwork principles. For example, tai chi does not double weight. While hung ga footwork is built upon a strong horse stance.



1- what is the major tenet in common with all chinese martial arts (cma)?

My lineage is better than your lineage.

2 - what is the main strategic points of cma?

To prove my lineage is better than your lineage.

3 - what are the main important body mechanics rules of cma?

To turn my nose up in disgust when your lineage is mentioned, and smile in your face and then hurt you if you question my lineage.

4 - what is the most important things to note about cma footwork? Please tell me:

The founder of your lineage had no feet, so of course my lineage has better footwork.

lmao....!!

[Baqualin]

Well I see some things never change.....go away and all h@ll breaks loose.
A few things.
I'm the one that said GM Ie only taught Chinese....he would not even teach Indonesian's and GMS was very clear on this!!!!!

I still think the pictures came from someone in Hiangs camp who is just stirring up sh!t!

It has always been a known fact that were multiple teachers in Indonesia....some of them are listed on Hiangs site.

People visit other schools all over the world.....doesn't mean they were taught anything.

I agree with JP regarding GMS's handling of the western schools......smart business and the right thing to do.

SD internal system....we know and teach the principals....whole body movement is the very basic's of any internal system...from the spine!! Coiling...silk reeling....peng...jing....compressing....sinking and proper body mechanics from the toes up is taught (you still get the arm wavers....some people just don't get it). I agree with Bruce, touch hands with him before you judge (Bruce was even critical of EML and I will say the same to him...touch hands with him before you judge) we have touched hands with people all over the world and always leave with mutual respect....anybody that was at our visit to Chen village will know what I'm talking about.

Most Yang stylist practice for health and not martial ability.....they would not fair very well in a real fight. There's only a handful who really get it (including SD). Even some of the so called great masters would have their a$$es handed to them! As far as leaning forward you never see that in the Chen style....they can fight and are very well rooted.

The CMC form would have been very easy for GMIe to pick up...it has always been popular in Taiwan and surrounding areas.

China is a extremely large country full of mysticism and so many styles (each one is the one) who know's what the f@ck is going on.

Sal I highly respect your work and what you have uncovered in your studies......maybe you should include Indonesia and other countries in your research to follow the path of CMA and it's evolution


Best to all...have fun on this crazy thread.
BQ

[Iron Palm]

The CMC form would have been very easy for GMIe to pick up...it has always been popular in Taiwan and surrounding areas.

Hello all,

I'm glad this was brought up because I am confused about the inclusion of the CMC form in the SD curriculum. I'm working on reading my way through this thread, but I've only finished about half of it, so if this has already been covered then please refer me to the page(s).

I don't understand how Grandmaster Ie would have picked up this form, given some cursory research I have performed.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheng_Man-ch%27ing, Cheng Man Ching did not formalize his abbreviated yang form until 1946, in Sichuan (http://www.chengmanching.com/biotimeline.html says 1938). According to http://www.shaolingrandmaster.com/biography.html, GM Ie fled China in 1911, presumably to avoid the penalty for leaving "a mountain of dead soldiers". Please forgive my ignorance of Chinese history, but I would assume that being a wanted man in one province would have meant the rest of China was off-limits to him as well, so it seems unlikely he would have picked up the form there.

Again, according to wikipedia and chengmanching.com, CMC did not move to Taiwan (to teach his abbreviated form) until 1949. Shaolingrandmaster.com, however, says that GMT was born in 1943, and began training with GM Ie at the age of 6 (1949). Based on what I've read so far on this board, GMT's website, and the CSC Training manual, I get the impression that the Chung Yen school was already fairly well established by the time GMT began training there, so it seems unlikely to me that GM Ie would still be traveling around "collecting" forms (keep in mind Bandung is ~2,300 miles from Taiwan). However, if he were continuing to travel and train, he would only have another 6 years to do so, as "at age 12 [. . .] [Grandmaster The] dedicated eight hours a day to private instruction with Grandmaster E [. . .]." Even if one assumes the CMC form became so ubiquitous as to make its way from Taiwan to Bandung in that time frame, I don't see how GM Ie (or anyone else) could learn, train, and master a totally new system while dedicating so much time daily to teaching someone else.

It just doesn't seem plausible that GMT got this form from GM Ie.

I accept my own ignorance on the topics of Tai Chi, Taiwanese/Indonesian/Chinese History, and martial arts in general, so I am posting this as a request for information. How did this form come to be in the SD curriculum? Do those of you with more experience have any light to shed on this issue?

When did GMT begin teaching this form? I recall reading very early on in this thread the contention over the 24-combined form and its history, and I believe someone stated GMT learned 24 from a friend(?) in Indonesia and wanted to teach it because of its popularity. Is the situation with CMC Yang the same?

I ask because in SD, or at least in CSC SD, Tai Chi seems to be given a heavy emphasis (24 required for 1st black, push hands required for all levels of black, 6 tai chi forms required at 5th), and GMT himself has said in his book and at seminars that proficiency in pa kua, hsing i, and tai chi are prerequisites for liu hsing...

[BoulderDawg]

Did I miss this? Is that suppose to be The'?

[Lokhopkuen]

Let me say one thing.

I've been in the hospital for like a month, I've been out a few weeks. I had major surgery in my abdomen, huge scar from them cutting through my abs and removing a whole section of material (food poisoning from bad fish infected a section of my intestines).
I've taken no pain killers since I have been home.

I am in serious constant sharp pain as it all heals up.

Yet, as I practice my routines, I feel no pain whatsoever, I even showed my surgeon at a follow up appointment, since he didn't want me to do any form of exercise or lifting for the next few months.

No pain when doing routines, why? Because of correct CMA body mechanics.

AND, I was told that from October last year to when I got this last operation (2nd) I was in danger of dying at any moment if there was an organ rupture and the material could have infected the whole inside area.
They said it was a miracle, since they didn't know things were that bad til they opened my a few weeks ago, and I had been doing my CMA teaching and practicing and jumping around on stage with my band. At any moment any of that could have caused the rupture.
BUT, thanks to all the Shaolin Neigong I practiced, nothing had happened. In fact some weird thing occurred inside that prevented it, even the surgeon called it a miracle.

But, I know it was because I practiced correct CMA body mechanics and core movement.

It wasn't "humility" that saved me. It was CMA.

Now I am healing with no pain killers and already out and about and driving and so on, only two weeks since the surgery.

Elitist? What does that even mean here? Why even say it? I think I am better than you because I know something you don't? To even say that means that you are projecting and feeling "inferior". It automatically says that you know it is something SD doesn't know. You don't have to feel bad about it, nor do you have to think that I think I am "better" than you. Especially since I have never said even once "I am better than you all because I know something you don't".
No, that is people feeling guilty or foolish projecting this on to my words"
When I have ever said anything to make people personally "feel hurt"?
It's a case of either "the truth burns" or "if the shoe fits, wear it".

All I have ever said is, "SD is not teaching correct CMA body mechanics and core principles". That's all my words said or meant.
That's it. Nothing personal. Nothing Elite. Nothing Un-humble.

So far no one has ever proven to me otherwise.
There's plenty of ex-SD that have agreed over the years though.

Sorry to hear about you health problems Sal and I hope you feel better soon.

Frankly I am surprised that a person as knowledgeable and well read as yourself is even here debating with these guys on the validity of their practice.

Most of these fellows seem conscious free thinkers who take pride in what they've practiced and I admire their persistence in debate even against some of the most bitter, ugliest detractors.

Personally I'd like to see more vids chronicling the SD forms and fighting practices so that I might understand better their connection to Shaolin.


If a man is fulfilled by his practice is there anything really left to say?


peace

[themeecer]

Baqualin, I may swing by your internal class in Lexington on Saturday. I held our first internal only class this past Tuesday and I want to pick up some pointers. What are you all currently working on? I'd like to see the progression of brand new internal students in your classes someday.

I have had reservations about teaching our internal separately and am still warming up to the idea. I explained to our new students that this was a work in progress and the curriculum order was still being fleshed out. They assumed that was a call for them to put input into it because one student told me he wasn't interested in the martial arts part of it ... he just wanted to be artistic in waving his arms around. Another student wanted me to abandon my ideas of teaching the class at our gym and instead teach at the Silver Ladies group in the local Y. Another who had our tai chi several years ago was frustrated that what I was doing didn't look like the form she had learned, I explained that I knew that ... we were doing the warm ups. So with the patience of Job, I smiled and continued on.

I really do care about my students and want to improve my ability at conveying the material in the most effective manner. I am always open to new drills and training ideas. I wish this was a medium where we could discuss things like this instead of arguing about gi's and lineage 24/7.

[Leto]

Hello all,

I don't understand how Grandmaster Ie would have picked up this form, given some cursory research I have performed.


It just doesn't seem plausible that GMT got this form from GM Ie.

How did this form come to be in the SD curriculum? Do those of you with more experience have any light to shed on this issue?

When did GMT begin teaching this form? I recall reading very early on in this thread the contention over the 24-combined form and its history, and I believe someone stated GMT learned 24 from a friend(?) in Indonesia and wanted to teach it because of its popularity. Is the situation with CMC Yang the same?

I believe this was asked at least once before on this thread. If anyone knows the
answer, they aren't telling. There are folks who know when he first started teaching it, but no one has said where or from whom he learned it.
I also wonder how the more modern forms, like CMC yang style short form and Jiang Rong Qiao's original bagua form, got into the system. I also would like to know just what branch of hsing i we have, and what it's lineage is. I don't think we'll ever get the answers. GMT is probably the only one who knows, and I imagine anyone who has access to him isn't going to ask such questions.
The impression I've been given of the general attitude towards training back in the early days of Gm The's teaching is that most students didn't care about the details of what they were learning, like what it was called or where it came from, they were really all about training hard and fighting. Few people asked questions, and information was rarely offered up. Knowledge was not preserved by the first generation of students in the US, so there isn't anything to pass down to the later students. At this point, I think most people still in the system feel it would be rude to ask for information from GM The that he didn't choose to give up front.
That's an optimistic point of view, in my opinion, that GM The would have freely given information about where and from whom the forms came, and we'd have a more detailed history now, if his first students had just been more interested in asking and learning those things. Maybe it would just take someone with access to GM The to ask if they can interview him about the historic details of the various forms, and the teaching that took place at the Bandung school, for posterity's sake. This would put to rest many questions people have about the system and their training. Is this going to happen? I don't think so.

[Judge Pen]

I think the assumption is that The' learned everything from Ie. that has probably been explicitly said on website in the past (I'm not sure). I don't buy that. My understanding (and by understanding I mean unsubstantiated oral history) is that among the many teachers at the Indonesian school one of them was an internal specialist. Perhaps that individual brought these forms to SD.

BQ help me out, do you recall that teacher's name. I recall him being referenced when the' was talking about the history of our fan form. I need to pull out that video and watch it.

I was under the impression that many of the collegues traveled. Maybe taiwan?

[SDJerry]

You know what’s odd about this is everyone theorizes about Sin The's background, making assumptions, and forming their own opinions like he is no longer alive and not a resource. Everyone has their own idea of how the system evolved and its origins. Even people who have been in the system for a long time have their own opinion and others seem to put more weight on it due to length of service as you might say hehehe

What's wrong with this? Sin The is still alive and could easily correct everyone with his story. It's his style, so his accounts should take precedence over everyone else. The problem? No one believes the 'entire' story... only parts. They view it as part of a clue to a bigger story that "no one will ever know for sure". Points that have been clearly documented on his site are tossed out with others still trying to find the 'real' story.

IMO, this is what kills the style. The fact that anyone who does a little research or a simple google search will find all these issues with the history. If the story of the art where not there, people would pay closer attention to the content. They're just not getting that far because the story turns them off.

[kwaichang]

From what GMT has told me personally and or from his EM students this is the way it is.
GGMIe traveled through out china prior to his leaving China, prior to that he learned from SKTJ, He moved to Indonesia and taught Chinese only.
GMT became a student at about 6 years old prior to that he trained for about a year with a Sand Burn Teacher from all kinds of warped stories have sprung.
during his latter training years with GGMIe he was introduced to a very good internal stylist {name} ??? JP will tell ya. This is where he learned alot of his Internal stuff from what I am told and have learned.
During his seminars he gives the history part fact and part Legend to the students, he mentions names , dates and style off shoots. Etc.
I have never wanted for history and have been told by GMTh'e that we trace our art to the Shaolin Temple(S) . Not that they came from there, they were just worked on and perfected at one of them. Also I haved learned that much of SD came from military sources, ie: a General this or that that sought refuge in the temple or temples.
When given the hand outs I cross reference the History section of the forms in the hand out and short of a year or two here or there they have been on the money. As far as Tai Chi 24 it is rather modern but traces it self indirectly to Yang Tai Chi and Thus to Chen and thus to the temple. I have read that the Chen Villiage where it was practiced is rather close to a Shaolin Temple and that often the Monks would train in that art.
SD comes from the Temples and China in this way and through time the art has changed much like Funakoshi and his Karate art has transformed into the JKA Karate known today. They dont even look the same as they did in 1950. SD is much the same. I blame this on interpretation , application, and EGO of the teachers that teach. Well I hope none of you found this too boring. While some feel the art lacks this or that I love it I can fight with it and I truly feel that what we do now is a good and Historic thing with good intent from GMTh'e. Thanks KC

[SDJerry]

I have never wanted for history and have been told by GMTh'e that we trace our art to the Shaolin Temple(S) . Not that they came from there, they were just worked on and perfected at one of them.

If you say you trace the art to the Shaolin Temple(s), you are in fact saying that is where it came from. Or shall I say you are implying, because most people consider tracing it back as drawing a line from present time "directly" to the temple. Now you can say that the line branches to defend your first satement, but then I would argue an accurate statement should be "We trace the art indirectly to the Shaolin Temple(s)". The latter statement doesn't carry the same weight as the original.

This is my problem with a lot of the story telling. I always felt there was a lot of trickery there. It's a lot of twisting statements and generalizations that don't really say a lot of anything. If you can't trace directly to the Shaolin temples, why even bring them up? Most martial arts can trace back to them in some manner.

[kwaichang]

SD Jerry that is just semantics, Direct, indirect what ever, the point is GMTh'e never said it came from, but that it was worked on there and became Shaolin with work and time. Much of what he has said was that alot came from other arts introduced and worked on there. Even the so called original ones were introduced there at some time. But I know what I heard and have researched etc BTW the history on the Tai Chi 64 traces it to Chang San Feng. KC