Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Judge Pen]

If it was a legal proceeding then there is a transcript available.
Why not just ask for that? Boom done. no argument about it.

and, why would one say one thing in court and the other say another?
That would put them both in a position to be charged and convicted of perjury.

Not necessarily. If it were in State Court, the lawyers are responsible for the record and they are often destroyed following the expiration of the appeals period. And hardly anyone is charged with perjury (unless you are testifying in front of a Federal Grand Jury on Congress). Finally someone referenced that the settlement was confidential and the matter was placed under seal. If that were true, none of this is available to the public now.

[Judge Pen]

Except no one has learned Golden Snake, right?

I wouldn't say that. No one is supposed to talk about learning Golden Snake, but I would wager it is being taught to his elder students that are physically capable of learning the material.

[kwaichang]

That is true and is being taught , it is probably the real deal but now who knows right ? I think if any thing that is all he has that may be legit. KC

[tattooedmonk]

We've been over this many times.
This is what I think is crazy. Long time students don't even know where the forms they have learned came from, or if there are any other styles or schools which practice them. I didn't either, when I first started, but a little research and talking to people revealed more facts.
Jiang Rong Qiao's book is titled "Baguazhang Lian Xi Fa". It includes the "rules of bagua", which in our CSC manual were broken down into 64 rules. It has been quite helpful to me in correcting some of the movements I was taught incorrectly.

The eight animal form I have only been able to find taught by Jerry Alan Johnson on his old video instruction series from the 80's, of which clips are available on youtube and elsewhere. Based on the way he teaches the Jiang Rong Qiao form, I would say he didn't get it from Sin The. There is a possibility Sin The got something from him, though.

The Yang style taijiquan form, which out east you guys call the 64, is Cheng Man Ching's 37 posture form, an abbreviated version of the classical Yang style form of Yang Cheng Fu. It is published in a book called "Master Cheng's New Method of Taichi Ch'uan Self-Cultivation", and probably elsewhere as well. The 24 posture form we learned is the standard 24 posture simplified tai chi form taught everywhere, sometimes called the Beijing form. It is also based on movements from the classical Yang style form of Yang Cheng Fu (not combined styles, as I was told when learning it, that is a different form). I am sure that has been published in numerous forms by numerous people since it was invented in the 1950's.
I don't know where the Chen 83 posture is published, because I never got a chance to take that seminar and actually see the form.
Most Xingyiquan is very similar, across school and styles, especially the five elements. The animals have a bit more variety. I am not sure which branch of xingyiquan ours is supposed to be, but it seems most likely Hebei branch. It is definately not Henan/Xinyi LiuHe quan. I've been learning a lot about xingyi and bagua from watching Luo Jinhua of Sha Guozheng's style, who was a student of Jiang Rongqiao.

I also have Doc Fai Wong's Shaolin Five Animal book and video. It is the same form taught by Sin The. The way I learned it from Soards, some of the movements which make it obvious that it is from a Choy Li Fut lineage were altered (the rear arm swinging). As this particular form I don't think anyone has seen anywhere except from Lau Bun's Hung Sing Choy Li Fut, I think it's pretty clear that is where Sin The got it. The book was published in 1988. When did Sin The start teaching it?

Yes, Sin The could have learned these styles actual people, as they are all pretty common. Given that he came to the US in 1963, there is no way he learned the tai chi or bagua before then, as the teachers of the forms we use were still alive and living in Taiwan and China respectively. It is possible he learned xingyi as a boy, but I doubt it, given the style of the material he started out teaching, which uses no xingyi mechanics. At best, they were learned from colleagues or seminars or private lessons, and he never told anyone who his actual teachers were. Maybe some people feel that it isn't important that he do so, that it doesn't matter where anything came from, as long as you "win the fight". But at the very least, no one should be advertising or talking as though everything they teach is an ancient tradition direct from the shaolin temple. They should be saying when asked that the basic material is from Sin The's interpretation of the material he learned as a boy (18 is still a boy). The rest is borrowed from various modern and traditional sources in order to introduce variety and create a diverse and fun curriculum.

I agree with a great deal of this...

The shaolin 5 animal form, wavy arms were probably added when it was learned by Lau Bun seeing as it is a Shaolin form and not CLF. Not failing to mention that in Sin The's version, the moves are more accurately labeled with the pictures/ moves in the form.

I would say a great deal of the material in question here is from Cai Long Yun ( 24 tai chi.. the Huas... Drunken....and Joseph Crandel's translations or similar sources.

quite frankly it doesnt make any difference to me. I am glad SD introduced me to so many arts ....!

[tattooedmonk]

I know the Golden Snake style.... its hidden in my pants!! I used it last night, its the deadliest!!!

[tattooedmonk]

really?


really?!?

c'mon guys, when r u gonna learn?

BTW Dig the links.

[Leto]

I agree with a great deal of this...

The shaolin 5 animal form, wavy arms were probably added when it was learned by Lau Bun seeing as it is a Shaolin form and not CLF. Not failing to mention that in Sin The's version, the moves are more accurately labeled with the pictures/ moves in the form.

I would say a great deal of the material in question here is from Cai Long Yun ( 24 tai chi.. the Huas... Drunken....and Joseph Crandel's translations or similar sources.

quite frankly it doesnt make any difference to me. I am glad SD introduced me to so many arts ....!

That is true about the five animal form, but the posture naming could still have been added after the book by The. Until we find some other source for this shaolin form besides Lau Bun, there will always be this doubt based on the questionable integrity revealed. It is possible that this particular shaolin form was known by Ie Chang Ming or someone else in Bandung as well as Lau Bun's teacher's wife, and it just so happens that we have one of only two known variations of it. If we went back to China and did lots of research maybe someone could turn up another source for it, or reveal where Lau Bun's teacher's wife learned it. It is also possible that Lau Bun's story was made up as well, and he invented the form.

I am glad SD introduced me to so many styles as well. I am not regretful or resentful of any of my experiences, I just think I would not do things the same were it me in the driver's seat.

[tattooedmonk]

That is true about the five animal form, but the posture naming could still have been added after the book by The. Until we find some other source for this shaolin form besides Lau Bun, there will always be this doubt based on the questionable integrity revealed. It is possible that this particular shaolin form was known by Ie Chang Ming or someone else in Bandung as well as Lau Bun's teacher's wife, and it just so happens that we have one of only two known variations of it. If we went back to China and did lots of research maybe someone could turn up another source for it, or reveal where Lau Bun's teacher's wife learned it. It is also possible that Lau Bun's story was made up as well, and he invented the form.

I am glad SD introduced me to so many styles as well. I am not regretful or resentful of any of my experiences, I just think I would not do things the same were it me in the driver's seat.

agreed. Its a great form in my opinion either way. I have researched the are classical postures/ names are right on.... just saying. DFW 's are slightly off , in my opinion.

[One student]

We've been over this many times.
This is what I think is crazy. Long time students don't even know where the forms they have learned came from, or if there are any other styles or schools which practice them. I didn't either, when I first started, but a little research and talking to people revealed more facts.
Jiang Rong Qiao's book is titled "Baguazhang Lian Xi Fa". It includes the "rules of bagua", which in our CSC manual were broken down into 64 rules. It has been quite helpful to me in correcting some of the movements I was taught incorrectly.

The eight animal form I have only been able to find taught by Jerry Alan Johnson on his old video instruction series from the 80's, of which clips are available on youtube and elsewhere. Based on the way he teaches the Jiang Rong Qiao form, I would say he didn't get it from Sin The. There is a possibility Sin The got something from him, though.

The Yang style taijiquan form, which out east you guys call the 64, is Cheng Man Ching's 37 posture form, an abbreviated version of the classical Yang style form of Yang Cheng Fu. It is published in a book called "Master Cheng's New Method of Taichi Ch'uan Self-Cultivation", and probably elsewhere as well. The 24 posture form we learned is the standard 24 posture simplified tai chi form taught everywhere, sometimes called the Beijing form. It is also based on movements from the classical Yang style form of Yang Cheng Fu (not combined styles, as I was told when learning it, that is a different form). I am sure that has been published in numerous forms by numerous people since it was invented in the 1950's.
I don't know where the Chen 83 posture is published, because I never got a chance to take that seminar and actually see the form.
Most Xingyiquan is very similar, across school and styles, especially the five elements. The animals have a bit more variety. I am not sure which branch of xingyiquan ours is supposed to be, but it seems most likely Hebei branch. It is definately not Henan/Xinyi LiuHe quan. I've been learning a lot about xingyi and bagua from watching Luo Jinhua of Sha Guozheng's style, who was a student of Jiang Rongqiao.

I also have Doc Fai Wong's Shaolin Five Animal book and video. It is the same form taught by Sin The. The way I learned it from Soards, some of the movements which make it obvious that it is from a Choy Li Fut lineage were altered (the rear arm swinging). As this particular form I don't think anyone has seen anywhere except from Lau Bun's Hung Sing Choy Li Fut, I think it's pretty clear that is where Sin The got it. The book was published in 1988. When did Sin The start teaching it?

Yes, Sin The could have learned these styles actual people, as they are all pretty common. Given that he came to the US in 1963, there is no way he learned the tai chi or bagua before then, as the teachers of the forms we use were still alive and living in Taiwan and China respectively. It is possible he learned xingyi as a boy, but I doubt it, given the style of the material he started out teaching, which uses no xingyi mechanics. At best, they were learned from colleagues or seminars or private lessons, and he never told anyone who his actual teachers were. Maybe some people feel that it isn't important that he do so, that it doesn't matter where anything came from, as long as you "win the fight". But at the very least, no one should be advertising or talking as though everything they teach is an ancient tradition direct from the shaolin temple. They should be saying when asked that the basic material is from Sin The's interpretation of the material he learned as a boy (18 is still a boy). The rest is borrowed from various modern and traditional sources in order to introduce variety and create a diverse and fun curriculum.

I thought I've seen a list of the names of the actual teachers and their areas of expertise at GGM Ie's school. I think its on this very thread.

I've heard of JRQ's book on Ba Gua, I keep saying someday I'm going to get it.

And the Tai Chi form, in one verison or another, I've seen in several books, different authors, sometimes with only slight variations.

But other than the handful of items Leto provides sources for, that leaves, of the hundreds of forms he's taught out over nearly 50 years, a whole lot unaccounted for.

He used to talk about Liu Hsing (The Meteor Fist) back in the 60's. I know people who have researched even the name, and found nothing other than very old references in very old books to a "Shooting Star" system. Has anyone ever seen any printed text on "10,000 Lotus Blooming," which he also talked about in the 60's? And then to present the material decades later, I find it hard to believe he went out and found it somewhere, its too varied, too detailed, too different, like much of the other very exotic and rare forms he's taught. I am open to the idea that he got some of his material other than from his original school, but I'm doubtful of just making up, or finding in a book, or getting from a seminar or teacher no one else attended, no one else has, among the many followers of this thread, if not the others dedicated to debunking SD.

The question for the SD students (or at least a question) regarding teaching/showing material he's learned somewhere else other than GGM Ie's school, whether he got it from a seminar or a book, setting aside for a minute misstatements regarding either the origin (it could still be Shaolin even if he got it from a book or seminar), or where/how he got it, is: Whether getting it from someone who knows more about martial arts than they do, and who wouldn't be able to get it at all any other way, is worse than not getting it at all?

Much of the material I've gotten, I've made more of while outside of the class than in class just learning movements.

And where are these people who's material he is allegedly passing off as his own? You think they wouldn't be concerned? There are laws against passing off a product as something it isn't or from a source it is not actually from ("knockoffs"). Or are they just not concerned enough to do anything about it.

Is it like the people who specifically give the seminars, or sell the books, so that other people can go out and teach it themselves?

But Leto raises all good points and good questions. One would not be honest, if in fact it was all learned recently and then just passed on, if it did not make the SD student at least very sad over the uncertainty, or at least omission of the source, if that's what it is. Then again, "I have been a fool for lesser things."

[Judge Pen]

really?


really?!?

c'mon guys, when r u gonna learn?

I'm not speaking to Golden Snake as a legitimate style but I know it is being taught to some of the higher-ups in SD.

[MasterKiller]

I did not mean that these good sources had any special knowledge of the case; in fact I have no idea where they got their information. By good sources I simply meant that I knew them well and trusted them to be truthful.

That's how all this got started. People just kept telling the same stories and eventually it all became "common" knowledge.

It wasn't so long ago that everyone in SD thought there was a statue of Sin The' at Shaolin Temple, afterall. And I mean high level guys were saying this and arguing over it. We all know how that turned out...

[tattooedmonk]

WOOOHOOO! Its alive!!

[Lucas]

[Judge Pen]

Bill Leonard's comments as posted on the SDA facebook page:

http://goo.gl/EYDo8

[Golden Tiger]

Hey everyone, long time no see! So, what have I missed?