Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[One student]

So reading the transcript, I ask myself, what does it mean to my practice? Did not this thread start with someone, essentially, questioning the benefits of SD? So we are right back to the same question, and the same answer, asked so many times before: What do you get from SD? Anything? Then, good, keep at it. If not, do something else. Are you going to get so much more from something else? Practicing SD has given me fitness levels (varying with the consistency of my practice) I never had; along with a practical benefit I would not have by mere running or weight training. I credit the Tai Chi Chuan GMT taught me with fixing a knee ailment I had. I've embarrassed much bigger and stronger people than I, with minimal techniques learned in SD. And I am nothing compared to some of the people who have done SD longer, and shorter, time than I have.

And does this transcript really mean it is all a fake? Bruce Lee made up JKD from something. Would it not be honest for him to say it "came from" what he learned before inventing JKD? I know more than one Master, "Black Belt" Hall of Fame and everything, who made up entire systems from the hodge podge of stuff they grew up learning -- "eclectic" it is called. Penn & Teller did a show debunking martial arts, and had much more tradional, nationally known, respected by the "martial arts community," teachers/schools doing the same thing: promoting their art as "the best" or "the original," making people, kids, think they can fight, by flailing around in sparring class that would more likely get them killed in a real fight. Isn't that worse?

What about the famous teacher who claimed he could strike pressure points to disable an opponent, and it only worked (on film) on his students? Or the guy who demonstrated on his students the ability to physically manipulate them without touching them -- but it strangely didn't work on someone else who kicked his a--?

And lets face it: someone made up everything at one point or another. And I know, the first person who ever taught Tai Chi, or Pa Kua, or Hsing Ie, or a tiger or crane or whatever, wouldn't recognize it today. I am not convinced that modifying material, or even making up forms, although it had to come from what he learned, is that bad or that different. He didn't invent a bow stance, or a head block, or a side kick, or a tiger claw, or a pressure point. Is it that much different to put those things in a different order or sequence? If the ingredients are the same, even if not in the same sequence, isn't it the same meal? Or taste the same? Is not pieces of Shaolin, put togther 4-2-3-0-1, that different from 0-1-2-3-4? Is it worse? Or is it better?

And so we question GMT for telling us his material is from, or is, Shaolin. If he was taught by Chinese elders (no one has really ever said that wasn't true), who said they were taught from Shaolin material, did he not learn Shaolin kung fu? Did he not learn from the world of Shaolin? Does anyone think they taught him, the same way and methods and exact forms, they were taught?

And therefore, did not he teach, even what he made up, from Shaolin? If he showed us how to punch, is that not a Shaolin punch, if that is how he was taught to punch? What else could it be, if that is where he got it? Even if he also added temple blocks, sweeps, or other techniques to it? Is it less Shaolin kung fu, if it is rearranged to suit Western patience, Western tastes, Western understanding? Does anyone fault him for not starting his first classes, with a language handicap and time contraints he didn't have with GGM. Ie, with the same methods and materials that he started with? Would he be any less of a teacher, if he did not tailor what he taught to his students?

As for varying the material, I've seen people who took the same classes I did, do the same material, and I hardly recognize it. Many of GMT's outlying schools are well known for putting their own spins on the material GMT taught them.

Sometimes that is for benign reasons; sometimes it is just sloppiness. But why is what GMT admitted doing so wrong -- tailoring his material, what he knew, which had to be based on what he learned from Chinese kung fu/Shaolin based teachers -- for his students, even if it included making something up based on his Shaolin basics?

So I frame the question as the accuracy of what I was told. And I'm not prepared, yet, to say that because I was told the martial arts I was taught came from Shaolin, that I was lied to because it is not the Shaolin taught at the Temples in the 1600's. We all know that what is taught (or demo'd, more accurately) at the Temples now is closer to Peking Opera than Shaolin. Don't tell me that every one who teaches a form or a kata outside of SD, in other schools, teaches it the same way it was taught to them. Or the same thing, with no changes. How much of a "master" are they, if all they can do is regurgitate what they were shown?

And therefore I am not prepared to say that because he learned Shaolin methods and techiques and material and forms, from Shaolin based teachers and from Shaolin based methods and techiques and forms, and taught me what he said -- what I've always thought, and I don't think his deposition says otherwise -- was Shaolin based methods and techiques and forms, and that because they were not all the same forms he was taught or that were taught at the Temple, that what I have learned is worthless and I have been deceived. Or, that he knowingly or intentionally deceived.

My bottom line might be, he has probably forgotten more martial arts than I'll ever know (maybe figuratively and literally); but regardless, he knew then, and knows now, more martial arts than I knew then or know now. And that's what a teacher should be. Even if it is not as pure as something else might be. I'm just not so sure he ever said everything he taught was 100% exact Shaolin forms, and that is what he is being criticized for admitting is not true in his deposition.

So bring on the "you are rationalizing," "you are a SD/GMT apologist," etc. I'm not sure I am going to deny it. So what?

[One student]

Quoting Leto: "I also like what I learned there, for the most part. I just felt my instruction was not in-depth enough, too much too fast. And I wasn't fond of the business practices, and found a lack of accurate knowledge of history and martial arts in general being perpetuated from the highest levels. But that is true of many many martial arts institutions, not a lot of people spend time researching martial arts history and exploring accurate information various styles. "

This is unfortunately so true, these days more than in the past. I learned material in the 80's that he would take weeks and months to teach, that he'll do now in an afternoon. I've seen peole in the classses who have no idea what they are seeing, much less what they are doing (from time to time, me included). So, it is left to the individual practitioner to take that material, and learn from it what they can. Not exactly not unlike the proverb though, "I will not give you the gold, but I will give you the way to find it." Or something like that.

[One student]

I just wish he hadn't lied or alllowed his students to lie about the ancient origins of the material.

I'm not sure how much is a lie (which is, "I know it is absolutely wrong but I'm going to say it anyway"), as opposed to runaway rhetoric and "puffing" and not clarifying legends and stories as not absollute truth, and maybe some cultural issues, too, I'm not sure. But not the same as "lying." And I'm not sure "ancient origin of the material" is not accurate as to the source, techniques, methods, having the "ancient origin," and some of the forms, as opposed to each and every one of the exact forms. But still wish, as I would for any freind I see in difficult circumstances, it wasn't as it appears. But then I wish he would not have allowed a lot of his schools to do as some did, and that he would not be as free with rank advancement, and many other things I would do if it were my school. But it isn't. Maybe he was was being more self-examining when he once said, in describing the name of a form he was teaching, although not what it sounded like: "It is his form, he can call it whatever he wants."

[kwaichang]

Well written One Student I agree with much of what you have said, KC

[shen ku]

very well said one student, i teach SD and i would say for the most part none of my students are there just because it was "Shaolin"

[Leto]

I would assume the lawyer was asking questions based on the instruction of his client. He obviously wasn't clear on the whole "form" and "kata" thing, and the "belts" and "levels" thing. But he did ask a lot of good questions that someone without any coaching never would have known to ask. Someone who knew martial arts better could have made the questions more pointed and been more specific, it is true. I also felt like there might have been a language barrier preventing complete understanding...but I couldn't assume that GM The isn't really understanding the questions or answering them accurately. The matter of his brother is still mysterious. Why would he claim that Ie was his grandfather? Or did he not really claim that, but that is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation by his students? I am curiously what caused the two of them to part ways, as he obviously did not want to say anything bad about his brother or share their personal stuff (understandably). But I feel the answer to that mystery may shed light on some of the questions people have about the system.

I really want to know what material is from where, that is all I have ever wanted. Some of the forms he claims to have created I like, and I would like to know what they were based on so I can get a better insight into them. Maybe SKT doesn't know much of the history himself, as he was only a child when he learned from Ie Chang Ming. When I was 13 years old, I didn't really ask a lot of questions of my sensei about history or anything. I accepted the stories I was told, and trained like I was told. But that is just speculation.
I want to know what his sources were outside the style he learned from Ie Chang Ming. If there are manuals or books or videos involved, I would like to know which ones because I would look for them myself. I can learn from books and videos on my own as well as I can get it second hand from someone else. All that is needed is a training partner or two to work it out with.

shen ku: will you tell your students what you know of the origin of the forms you are teaching them? For instance, will you tell new students that the qin na or the sparring techniques or si men tao lian, or whatever form they are learning, are exercises created by GM The in the 60's or 70's, for the purpose of introducing new students to the system? Or do you feel that that type of information isn't important for anyone to know? Of course, it doesn't affect someone's ability to fight or be in shape...but shouldn't tradition be addressed in a system that identifies itself as a traditional martial art?

[Judge Pen]

I agree that I thought GM The was being very honest in answering the questions in the deposition with the exception of his rationalization in not admitting that he made this material up. I don't buy that he didn't want to be boastful; I think it is better for buisness to be ambigious on these points. And I think this ambiguity became more of a misrepresention in the retelling and he allowed that to continue.

I don't know GM The as well as others. I've had dinner with him on more than one occassion and always thoguht he was very personable and open with questions when asked. But he also liked to tell tall tales. These tales then get passed along as truth. The college sports phrase "lack of institutional control" comes to mind. GM The has shown an unwillingness to exert too much control on his elder students with the larger schools and lets them do things as they see fit. Which is why you get such a difference in the art from one school to the next.

[Orion Paximus]

My teacher's school was shut down because Sin The wasn't willing to stand up to the Soards. My teacher couldn't afford to travel to Colorado to test for his 3rd or 4th, and asked if he could test under Grooms or Leonard, he was refused and sent a letter to GM The and The's solution was to tell him he could no longer teach the material. This was in 1998 or so. That soured me.

In the end it worked out the best for me because I got to train with some true traditional CMA masters, but I always felt bad for my teacher. I also kept up with the material i was trained in because I have this OCD thing about losing any material. I did find some similarities with the Shaolin-Do stuff and the ideas of traditional CMA, but it would take a lot of reworking to make it look like traditional CMA. When I left Shaolin-Do i was a "Black Belt" so I had like 42 forms i knew.

[Judge Pen]

Fei Hu and Lo Han Chien for sure. When I log into my work system, I'll post a clip of one of their former students doing parts of these forms and an e-mail he answered confirming that he learned these forms from an NG family practitioner.

I could not find the clip, but it was part of National Geographic's Fight Science Alex Huynh was demonstrationg some kung fu moves and he did moves that looked to be parts of sequences from LoHan Chien and Fei Hu Chu Tong. This was discussed previously on this thread here: http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/foru...pp=10&page=351

As a result, I e-mailed Alex Huynh and that e-mail is below:

Mr. [Pen],

Yes indeed, that was Lohan Chien and Fei Fu Chu Tong (I'm afraid I just butchered the spelling). I studied ShaoLin Kungfu under Instructor David White and Grandmaster John Winglock Ng. That's where I got my official start in the Chinese martial arts. Wushu came much later (I've done traditional for over 15 years, Wushu for maybe 4 years), contrary to popular belief.

I'm very glad you got to see the program and I hope you enjoyed it. There are many things that were cut from the show due to time restraints, but I did my best to represent the Chinese arts. Thank you for watching to show, stay tuned for more!

Sincerely,
Alex Huynh


On 10/9/06, [Judge Pen] wrote:
Alex,

In the "Fight Science" show you demonstrated moves in a form that are, move for move, identical to forms that I know including a forms known to me as "LoHan Chien" and "Fei Hu" I'm curious to know where you learned these sequences....Did you train with anyone that studied these forms? Did you learn them from your shaolin instructor?

I appreciate in advance your cooperation and courtesy in my questions. I look forward to hearing back from you.

[Judge Pen]

***********

No this is even more interesting in that these two forms are supposedly part of the forms GM The claims a copyright to and were supposedly created by him.

[shen ku]

JP, Rick Pickens, now a very high master in Ng family, started in SD under Bob Green. He made it to black belt, this has been along time ago, but i have been told by one of his students that they, at times, have used some of these forms. So i believe that answers how that got into others hands.

as to if i will talk with my students about it .yes. not sure exactly how i will do this just yet. i had been told long ago that things had been changed, for us slow white people. I feel that the lower material surved a pupose to build us step by step to someplace that we needed to be. the skill level increase with each level. but i do wonder if master ie not really wanting GMS to teach us in the first place had any thing to do with this, just a thought

[bodhi warrior]

[QUOTE=Shane;1164467]True story. Master Rick is my Baguazhang master.

Just in case it's not clear, GM Ng never taught any of the same forms that are seen in SD. The thing is that because they exist in the same "home area" geographically, a lot of Ng Family students had previously trained in SD (some of them having high level ranks). When these folks eventually opened their own schools, they taught whatever they wanted to. GM Ng didn't really tell people what to teach once they were on their own or exercise control over their schools that I'm aware of other than visiting from time to time. I can think of at least three 1st gen. Ng Family masters that were in SD before they met GM Ng. Could've been more maybe.

Master Rick doesn't teach anything besides GM Ng's Baguazhang and knife work anymore, I don't think. But back in the day (prior to my training w/ him), I think he still taught three or four SD forms before he taught them GM Ng's system. I never asked him why he did that, I just heard it through the grapevine.

Just curious what style of bagua he teaches. I learned Jiang Rongqiao's original form back around '86 from Sin The'. I practice this form daily. I've been influenced by Gerald sharp, Ted mancuso, Novell bell, kang ge wu, all of whom practice this style. Curious to see what other bagua styles are in ky.

[shen ku]

didn't mean to say he was still teaching those, just saying that i know people who learned them from him, with a little twist here and there, maybe like some breathing work and such add in.

shane, just asking but how is master rick doing, last time i saw him he seemed to be doing alot better then he was after the car reck?

[RJ797]

I don't think Sin The' made up everything on the tape he submitted for copyright. I think that tape represents most, if not everything he learned in Indonesia. When his brother came to the States he already had this material. Sin The' frequently told the story of the brothers going through the "lower belt" material to confirm they both were teaching the same thing and having to call Ie Chang Ming to settle disputes. If Sin The' invented this stuff upon his arrival in the States how did Hiang get it and how could there be any debate about what was right?

Another thing (of many) that doesn't add up is the need to make stuff up if you have 900 forms. We have seen many simple forms and training foundations over the years. He could have used the basic Mantis training for instance. So, why didn't he pull something from his vast body of material? Because he only had a fairly small body of material.

What does all this mean? He lied in the deposition to try and establish copyright control. He feels he needs the "hammer" of the copyright to keep control. The Soards have certainly used the copyright threat on regular basis.

Sin The' has tremendous basic martial skills, he can hit and kick at a very high level. He has the type of skill you develop from years of practice on fundamentals, not years of practice trying to memorize one form after another.

If it wasn't clear before, it should be clear now. Sin The arrived here with a more normal amount of material and a lot of skill. He taught out what he knew and felt to keep students he needed to teach them new things, so he pulled something out of a book and has continued to "teach" new material he took from books.

[bodhi warrior]

I don't think Sin The' made up everything on the tape he submitted for copyright. I think that tape represents most, if not everything he learned in Indonesia. When his brother came to the States he already had this material. Sin The' frequently told the story of the brothers going through the "lower belt" material to confirm they both were teaching the same thing and having to call Ie Chang Ming to settle disputes. If Sin The' invented this stuff upon his arrival in the States how did Hiang get it and how could there be any debate about what was right?

Another thing (of many) that doesn't add up is the need to make stuff up if you have 900 forms. We have seen many simple forms and training foundations over the years. He could have used the basic Mantis training for instance. So, why didn't he pull something from his vast body of material? Because he only had a fairly small body of material.


What does all this mean? He lied in the deposition to try and establish copyright control. He feels he needs the "hammer" of the copyright to keep control. The Soards have certainly used the copyright threat on regular basis.

Sin The' has tremendous basic martial skills, he can hit and kick at a very high level. He has the type of skill you develop from years of practice on fundamentals, not years of practice trying to memorize one form after another.

If it wasn't clear before, it should be clear now. Sin The arrived here with a more normal amount of material and a lot of skill. He taught out what he knew and felt to keep students he needed to teach them new things, so he pulled something out of a book and has continued to "teach" new material he took from books.

You make some very interesting points. I wondered if he lied during the deposition also.

[Leto]

I don't think Sin The' made up everything on the tape he submitted for copyright. I think that tape represents most, if not everything he learned in Indonesia. When his brother came to the States he already had this material. Sin The' frequently told the story of the brothers going through the "lower belt" material to confirm they both were teaching the same thing and having to call Ie Chang Ming to settle disputes. If Sin The' invented this stuff upon his arrival in the States how did Hiang get it and how could there be any debate about what was right?

Another thing (of many) that doesn't add up is the need to make stuff up if you have 900 forms. We have seen many simple forms and training foundations over the years. He could have used the basic Mantis training for instance. So, why didn't he pull something from his vast body of material? Because he only had a fairly small body of material.

What does all this mean? He lied in the deposition to try and establish copyright control. He feels he needs the "hammer" of the copyright to keep control. The Soards have certainly used the copyright threat on regular basis.

Sin The' has tremendous basic martial skills, he can hit and kick at a very high level. He has the type of skill you develop from years of practice on fundamentals, not years of practice trying to memorize one form after another.

If it wasn't clear before, it should be clear now. Sin The arrived here with a more normal amount of material and a lot of skill. He taught out what he knew and felt to keep students he needed to teach them new things, so he pulled something out of a book and has continued to "teach" new material he took from books.

That's a reasonable hypothesis. How could anyone here in the US ever prove whether or not he invented those forms? You'd think that there would be some contemporaries of the The's in Bandung, other students of Ie Chang Ming around somewhere, who still knew those forms as well. It would just take someone with the means and the desire to go there and do some research.