Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[sean_stonehart]

Question: Where would I go to see real Xing-yi? Who is the best in the business that teaches 12 animals?

JP... at one of your future visits down, I'll get you over to to see Allen Pittman. He's regarded by more than a few people as really good. He's here in town.

[Judge Pen]

JP... at one of your future visits down, I'll get you over to to see Allen Pittman. He's regarded by more than a few people as really good. He's here in town.

That would be excellent. Any time I can remove ignorance for comparision's sake, I think that is a good thing.

[Fu-Pow]

Question: Where would I go to see real Xing-yi? Who is the best in the business that teaches 12 animals?

Post #1008....we finally get somewhere.

[Judge Pen]

Whatever Fu Pow. I always make a point to visit as many different kung fu schools as I can (especially when I travel). It's about time that you noticed.

[DragonflyDaoist]

I would like to know what MonkeySlap has written. I'm always on the lookout for quality martial reading material. Of course, if you want to maintain anonymity here, MS, I can understand that.

[brothernumber9]

"Please tell me why SD Xing-Yi is (not) Xing-Yi and every other style of Xing-Yi is Xing-Yi"

You almost said it yourself. SD Xing-Yi is a form. Other styles of Xing Yi are not just a form, they are systems with their own theory and method of mechanics that require building blocks from the ground up. i.e. fundamental stances, fundamental walking and changing footwork patterns, and primary theories and concepts of Xing Yi attack and defense, etc. Far more than a single form without the building blocks would reveal over a few months or even years.

These theories and methods would most assuredly conflict with some of the theories, methods, and mechanics implied to some of the other "styles" SD teaches. That is one of the crux(s) of most arguments against SD teachings of combining, or attempting to, of different styles that are unique systems unto themselves. Some of these "styles" compliment or mesh well with others. A lot of them don't.

[Judge Pen]

The thing is, it's not just a form in SD. Certainly it's an introduction to the style. It is taught over a 2 to 3 year period. During that time, it's all you learn with the exception of 3 straight sword sets, and along with the basics, you are tought a ton of meditation and chi kung. My teacher went into fundamentals and building blocks during my training which included stepping drills and resistance training.

Since I can't compare it to other Xing-yi, I don't know what, if anything was left out or was lacking. I can say that I haven't mastered the techniques. I'm still working on that. I'm charged with drilling it on my own and improving once my teacher judged that I had the basics down.

Again, I don't know if it's real Xing-yi, but it's real something and was taught with it's own theories, drills, and applications. The meditation, chi gong, and isometric training was essential to understanding and applying what we were taught. I'd like to compare it by visiting a schools and observing their training.

Maybe some people breeze through it without the drills and training. We don't. I'm sure from discussing the topic with GT that they don't in Lexington either.

[Golden Tiger]

SD Xing-Yi is a form

I would have to disagree with that although I concede your statement about conflicting styles and the "current" lack of building from the ground up.

"SD" Hsing Ie contains forms for the 5 roads or fists (Chopping, Banging, Stopping, Cannon, Crossing). It has a linkage form that combines these fists. There are 11 forms (for 12 animals Eagle/Bear are one) for the animals. There is a 2 man set using the animals and roads. There is a practice set (Shattering Hand) and now, there is a sword form that goes with it.

So, totaled the so called SD Hsing I form actually consists of 20 forms plus the Shattering hand techniques.

Along with all this, stances, theory, movements and meditation are taught.

This is concentrated on during the 3 year min. period from 2nd to 3rd Black.

[brothernumber9]

At face, what you stated seems quite logical and perhaps even proper. But deeper brings up other arguments. For example, within the SD curriculum where did the Xing Yi material originate. The logical immediate answer is Sin The. This then brings up the question of amongst the dozens of other systems SD promotes, and the testimony from pugilists of students that solely study those individual systems on how long it takes to reach a level of proficiency, how proper is the Xing Yi or any system SD teaches in relation to instruction from teachers of just those disciplines separately.

In other words, how much could Sin The have absorbed properly within the time frame of his life in comparison to how many systems SD teaches and how long it takes by others testimony and examples of reachng proficiency of those disciplines.

learning one or a few discipline alone in a lifetime much less dozens of disciplines, some of which contrast too much to each other.

Lets just say someone is 70yrs old and they teach 20 different styles. Take away five years for infancy. That equates to just a little over 3yrs per system if the training were non stop. Is that enough to properly learn each system?

[Golden Tiger]

within the SD curriculum where did the Xing Yi material originate.

That, I am not 100% sure about so I will not attempt to answer because slip ups here are not easily dealt with.

how proper is the Xing Yi or any system SD teaches in relation to instruction from teachers of just those disciplines separately

But it can also be asked of those who teach only a specific system. How proper is what they teach? What makes one so much better than the other? If one is able to grasp the essence of a system and gain in knowledge and ability, doesn't if make it benificial? I have gone to Emptyflower which seems to be the end all for Hsing I. Most of the things I have read on there are not new to me. Different terms but mainly the same concepts. So, what I got must be somewhat close to what everyone else got.

how much could Sin The have absorbed properly within the time frame of his life in comparison to how many systems SD teaches and how long it takes by others testimony and examples of reachng proficiency of those disciplines.

I can't answer that. All I know is that when he taught something out, it always consisted of extensive notes, background and basics that made it seem to work. With each system (Tai Chi, Pa Kua and Hsing I) I learned a new way of doing things. I took from each of them the essence of the system. Right or now, tradition or made up on the spot, it gave me something I didn't have before I learned it.

[wdl]

Lets just say someone is 70yrs old and they teach 20 different styles. Take away five years for infancy. That equates to just a little over 3yrs per system if the training were non stop. Is that enough to properly learn each system?

You make a good point brother. I think part of this is the difference in how the mindsets from Chinese arts that have come out of Indonesia and arts that have come out of China in the past 100 years have differed. In alot of Indonesia based systems learning a ton of styles is completely acceptable. It's like there's a large split in the thinking between the two branches.

I think your mostly right, with the exception of a few gifted instructors here and there.

-Will

[brothernumber9]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not implying that Sin The made up anything at all. I'm assuming he did learn Xing Yi. I'm only presenting possible arguments towards the depth of the understanding of the aspects implicit with learning Xing Yi to a level of proficiency that would justify the teaching as more than just a form.

A common point of view from some outside of SD is that SD is just a huge collection of forms and not much else. A bunch of emply shells if you will. After the posts of some SD students here less some former SD students, they are all adamant that is not the case.

There's a bunch of styles with dozens of forms, so having a bunch of forms and after aquiring fundamental skills, learning a few forms a year is par for the course. The difference in regards to SD (or so I'm assuming) would be that systems of themselves reinforce the learning with each form, refining and building on the specific theories, concepts, mechanics, and power generation that define the system.

By combining so many different styles, some of which contradict each other in some of the aspects above, and some that by testimony take longer than 3yrs to get an even intermediate level of, just makes it dubious that in such a conglomerate, the actual essence of such styles could still be present through such methods of universal learning and teaching all from only one immediate source.

[Golden Tiger]

I'm only presenting possible arguments towards the depth of the understanding of the aspects implicit with learning Xing Yi to a level of proficiency that would justify the teaching as more than just a form.

I can agree with that statement also. I guess where we ( and 99% of the rest here) differ is that while you may not learn everything there is to know about (insert system here) while studying SD, you are going to get a taste of it. And in that taste, you will get the basic essence of what that particular system has to contribute to your overall skill as a martial artist. Now with that, say you learn Hsing I and just love it and thats all you ever want to do again. Then you can go out and find a dedicated Hsing I school. If not, you can wait until you are introduced to something else that you like better but with the skill (how ever slight it may be) you gained from the Hsing I.

I guess what really gets me is that some of you all have the purist mentality that if its not the way you are doing it, then it has no value. If you don't study one sytle for decades then you are not qualified to teach it. But then again, I am the same way. Its an arrogance that is engrained in everyone to some degree.

Another funny observation..... You won't trust a MA teacher without a iron clad lineage and 10 or 20 years of study just to teach you how to punch, kick and breath and yet you will let a doctor with 6 years of schooling cut, poke, prod and pretty much hold your life in their hands.......funny eh?

[The Willow Sword]

My experience with the hsing i that SD had to offer only went as far as the actual forms but no real teaching as to the "content" of those forms.
I never learned abvout 5 element principles there ( i had to go to outside sources to learn that) i only learned maybe a few real applications to the sets taught out( again i had to go to outside sources OR try to figure things out on my own and even then i did not trust that what i was trying to learn on my own was correct)

when i got out of Sd and started looking at other more "Traditional" and legitamte hsing i systems i began to see the differences and was able to make out the modifications that were done in the SD hsing i to make it look unique to itself,,which again makes me wonder as to WHERE all this material was taken from.

in retrospect and in my opinion i think it is quite easy to plaguerize forms that you see ,say like on videotapes,,and then modify them to make it look like your own. Its easy to do this because there is no real legal copywrite put down on these forms because in the past, say like mid to late 70's and even early 80's martial instruction vids were done independantly and distributed independantly.
just some food for thought here.

As for GT's above post,,it just goes to show you how ignorant certain people are when it comes to how important history and lineage IS in the TCMA realm. And as for experience in the arts go,,id rather learn from someone who studied 6 months with a legitamate school than with someone who for 20+ years teaches from a school that fabricates its history and plagerizes other systems forms.

Peace,,TWS

[Judge Pen]

I understand the critics' arguments well. As GT and I stated, what we learn is an introduction to the basics. Hsing-I improved my power generation with all my techniques more than anything else I have studied. If I left SD (or moved to an area where I wasn't happy with the SD instruction) I could look back and my experiences and specialize in styles that interested me the most. I would expect to get a more thorough instruction if I went that route than I got in SD. But what is taught in SD is designed to fit together in a complimentary way.

We cannot learn Tai Chi, Pa Kua or Hsing-Ie as well as a student that studies nothing but one of those styles. But we can learn them well enough to apply the fundamental principles of each to make us better. I am more sensitive to my opponent weaknesses, center of gravity, and weight distribution though the Tai Chi I am taught. My footwork and ability to out step an opponent have improved through the Pa Kua I am taught. I can hit harder with less wasted energy through the Hsing-Ie I have been taught. Does that make me as good as any person that studies nothing but Pa Kua; nothing but tai chi; nothing but Hsing Ie? No, but I can take some of each and make me better.

Now, in addition to maintaining what I was taught before, I'm learning Long Fist. I'm never going to be as good at that as say, MK, or others that practice that style exclusively. But, I am closing distance better than I did before. The ability to blend those styles is a blessing to the individual; however, it's a curse to trying to do justice to the individual styles we are taught.

Good or bad, you can describe a quality SD person as a Jack of all trades and a master of none. But to be able to blend these styles into something that compliments the individual martial artist is a mastery of its own.