Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Shaolin Wookie]

what i've NEVER done is steal a form from another lineage then repackage and rename it hoping they never discover what i did. SUCKA.



LMAo.....your fake kung fu lineage practices gung fu taught out of a book and messed it up HORRIBLY because there wasn't a video yet. LMAO......

True, perhaps, but only as far as you know---about the "stealing" of course.

Now, let's say that I am a remarkable MA with great talents in fighting. Now suppose that Jake Mace teaches me his Tiger-Crane form, flawed as it is, and I decide that I can re-tailor the form far better than he does the form. I now have a 3rd form, twice removed from DFW's lineage. Which is the best of the 3 forms that then exist?

Is the 1st form the best one because it was the first form? Does it retain its "best" status simply because it was the first? Is it the best because you hit the right "markers"? Body mechanics always matter, but what if I apply, say, tai chi concepts to your tiger-crane form and wind up with a devastating martial art? What is the standard that you apply? If you accept that there are certain standards that do apply, then what standards might also apply (which you currently do not apply b/c you follow your lineage)? It's a dead end argument, whichever way you try to turn it. Forms are forms--nothing more, and it doesn't matter who taught them or how. It matters what you can do with them.

[Syn7]

Who was the cat in the vid?

[Empty_Cup]

I enjoyed the brief discussion about tiger claw.

Here's an alternate proposal: tiger claw is not tight/compact at all but is meant for striking with the fingertips (assuming proper conditioning of course). So to strike like this and get maximum strength/stability of the fingers, you would not hit with the heel of the hand but would have your fingers splayed out similar to doing a fingertip pushup.

Thoughts?

[Shaolin Wookie]

HSK Warrior....

You say that Jake Mace is f-ing up your form by making it karate-like. This is always the thing that makes kung fu practitioners disparage Shaolin-Do. What exactly about the karate-ness of certain motions makes karate so bad, such that a good motion in a kung fu form becomes "bad" when it is slightly karate-fied?


In fact, why is kung fu better than karate, if we give these terms their nationalistic meaning? I like CMA better than karate, and I think that many techniques are great, but I don't know what you (or anyone else) means by saying that kung fu is "better" because it isn't karate or doesn't have any karate-fied mechanics. I've often learned more about the benefits of a given style by taking classes in other MA's.

It can't be effectiveness that makes kung fu so much better. Lyoto Machida is a karate expert (on top of many other things) and is a world champion full-contact fighter. Cung Le (the champion of many CMA guys, simply because he throws some kung fu-like kicks) is a wrestler and a TKD blackbelt, not a kung fu guy. Even his sanshou is primarily western wrestling and simple kickboxing, LOL, and he trounced on guys who didn't have wrestling on par with his own by stomping on crappy sanshou fighters. It wasn't that Cung Le's sanshou was THAT great, but instead that the calibre fighter he faced in routine sanshou circuits wasn't that great because they couldn't handle a purebred wrestler. He doesn't fare nearly as well in MMA, even though he's one of my favorites to watch. There are no world champion kung fu fighters. TKD and karate seem to have the upper hand in the world, EXCEPT on kung fu webboards.

Just curious as to why kung fu practitioners who adopt some kuntao/karate/silat characteristics are definitely doing something "wrong" in your view. Seems to me that they are often doing something right by privileging practicality over kung fu's inveterate "pieces of flair" and "secret family styles."

[Shaolin Wookie]

BTW, I am with you 100% when you (HSK) say that SD should reveal its sources of information. I don't believe that anyone can know a thousand forms and perform each one at the drop of a hat, but I do believe that someone can learn them progressively, forgetting 10 for every ten that have been learned. This seems to be the SD way, from what I've seen of the guys who "collect forms." It's a silly enterprise.

Like JP, I think that there are lies that are told, which fudge the true sources. This isn't stealing, but it is dishonest. That is an issue for SD practitioners, not you. We are the one's defrauded if the material is pawned off as something it is not. You are NOT affected in the least. At best, you're just ****ed off that someone knows your ****, and he isn't doing it pretty enough. Still, it doesn't make that much of a difference except from the perspective of a martial arts historian, whihc is why your point is lost on most SD guys. We aren't looking for a cult of ancestors. Most of us aren't looking for a religion. We're looking for practical martial arts and a way to keep in shape.

Most SD players would likely say: Doc Fai Wong may be the lineage holder of this form, and GM Sin taught the same form to our teachers. We may not trust where GM Sin says that he got his form from, but we often trust our teachers (many of whom are very gifted MA's) make good of it based on their wide experience (and many years of it). And just like in your school, some students will butcher it, and others will develop it. Some teachers will butcher it, some forget it, and some will develop it. They may even develop it in ways you can't imagine.

[Shaolin Wookie]

white or chinese syn?

Neither. I'm an Apache warrior.

[Syn7]

white or chinese syn?

How can you ask me that? I think I'm offended. After all the back and forth you don't think I know what's going on?
The good one. I know who Jake Mace is from the other vids you posted before.

I didn't wanna assume it was Lau Bun or Doc Fai Wong. Pretty grainy, looks like a generic kung fu guy coz you can't see the face very well. He's good tho, I can see that much. Very strong legs.

[Syn7]

Reading the exchanges here in the forum recently regarding the 5 animal form is entertaining. I see a few martial artists asking intelligent questions of an individual that proclaims superior knowledge and credit as a martial artist, even to the point of using the term warrior in their screen name. What this petulant individual does/says is nothing remotely resembling the actions of a martial artist or a warrior. The petty insults, disparaging remarks and outright chalenges are in very poor taste and are actions of a bratty child instead of a warrior of honor. Oh yeah, I was a SD-er, but I am also a Judoka and a practicioner of Byakuren. I have also served putting boot to a$$ for God and country and have proven myself in that area as a warrior. So, to you, hsk, **** off. BTW, if a piece is published, put out to the public, isn't it understood that there will be those that will accept that gift and incorporate it into their own material? In other words, if the guy did not want folks to pick up the material, he should not have published it and put it out in order to make money off of it in the first place.

Okay, now I will sit back and listen to troll boy hsk whine some more.

When a form is published or taught to a student the permission is for individual consumption only. It isn't to be taught without authorization and it certainly isn't to be used to make money by an illegitimate practitioner. That is common in all MA's. If somebody went to SD for a few years, got kicked out and then taught the SD forms and curriculum on their own under a new name, SD would bring suit. Showing a form in public does not release all intellectual rights to the form. I don't know about precedent in relation to CMA's and the law in the states over ownership of obscure forms, but it is covered in a general sense. It is intellectual property. There is much debate on intellectual property rights right now, we'll see where that goes. But even if it isn't illegal to learn a form from a book then teach it for money without permission, it is most definitely frowned upon and considered immoral in the MA world.

There are a ton of crackerjack americanized MAs out here with nice lil storefronts. Most of them don't get sh1t on here coz even tho they are sad and inauthentic, they aren't actually stealing specific forms. They just make up their own bad ones. The reason Shaolin Do gets sh1t on is because they consistently make false claims. Why not just be who they are and stand tall like so many of their victims? Why the lies? It causes way more problems than it's worth.

[Syn7]

Part of the problem involved here is the almighty trade union/govt. regulation mentality of the Chinese vs. the free market mentality of America. Chinese martial arts has a very disgusting history of using the government as a bargaining chip in business affairs (think of the Shaolin/Emperor connection, whereby these "poor" monks lived off of the largesse of public expropriation by despots, thereby justifying governmental theft and the suppresison of liberty). Crossing the Pacific didn't change things. Even GM Sin, for instance, tried to claim a patent for his forms in court in order to fight a former student who was teaching without GM Sin's authorization. GM Sin lost (if I recall correctly)---and rightly so. How could he claim property in another person's memories? He could only claim property in the curriculum, the courts claimed (and I think this, too, is an injustice). GM Sin taught some of his forms out across public access television in Kentucky. Seems to me that he believed that others could learn mere forms from video--just like HSK's teacher--but was somehow ****ed off that others felt they could teach without a certificate (a license for business). What makes GM Sin or HSK Warrior's teachers so great that they--and only they--should have the right to say what should be taught? If this very narrowminded menatlity were the norm, (well, it is the norm in public schoolhouses), then NOBODY would ever learn anything new, and we'd all be slaves to our ancestors. (again, a very Chinese notion).

"Learning" is never a top-to-bottom enterprise. Yes, you often need a teacher if you wish to learn, but not always, or else nobody would learn anything new. Experience and Theory go hand-in-hand, but you may learn more from one than the other at times. But "you" are always the central figure in the learning process. If you don't wish to learn, then you won't. And if your teacher tells you that you owe him for life just for what he has taught you, then you may politely decline payment and tell him that he is wrong. Maybe he'll learn something new--something valuable.

And if someone claims that his teacher was the **** when it came to tiger-crane, and that his lineage is the source of that info, then you may mark down the historical relevance of that fact. But nobody owes anybody anything in this affair.

And we might--in theory....note that I'm strictly speaking in theory here--tell a sassy sourpuss who has a lineage on his back and an axe to grind, to simply **** off, and do so politely--in his own room and off of the KFM forum.

So your position on intellectual property is that all ideas spoken or written should be open source? So if you develop a sweet encryption code, the only way to keep it yours is to never use it? The only way to ensure a form is yours is to never show anyone? I understand the spirit behind that, but it creates so many problems. Too many examples to list.

You can use money to buy and suppress knowledge, and that sucks. But the trade off is that a man can profit from better ideas rather than just automatically placing it in the hands of those who already have the means and infrastructure to put the ideas in motion. That never ends well when the inevitable oligarchy sorts it out. At least with intellectual rights people can make a better life for themselves. And if they want to make it open source, cool, they can do that if they choose.

It would be nice if all decisions were based solely on moral considerations, but that isn't the case.

[Syn7]

Something about kicking ass that always brings up the legal rights of the dead (or retired).

Everyone wants to kick ass through a ouiji board.

Actually, I own the intellectual rights to kicking ass.

[Syn7]

He "stole" information from a book? Did I steal from Leo Tolstoy when I just recalled the episode of Levin mowing wheat in Anna Karenina just now? Are all of our children thieves when we teach them to read, and worse, to remember the alphabet on cue? LOL.

It is not crime to remember a story, but it is illegal to turn around and resell it with a new name without explicit permission from the owner of the piece.

[Syn7]

It is not stealing if it is already in the public and once you have taken possession of it you can call it whatever you like.

So if I write, record and release a song, you can just take it and sell it to whoever you want? That would be bullsh1t and you know it. How is a form any different than a story or a song?

Personally, I just think MA's are light years behind when it comes to the law. They really need to catch up and put disclaimers on everything. Make students sign contracts of conduct and all that. Some do, many don't. It seems like the cracker jack schools are way more knowledgeable of the law and use that to their advantage. A strip mall commercial karate school will mos def have disclaimers whereas the old dude who teaches at the park for free but still wants his rights respected is relying on the honor system. Back in the day it was cool, if you were dishonorable then it could be settled between the schools. That doesn't fly anymore, and legal knowledge is the only real protection for property rights, intellectual or otherwise.

Any judge that rules against clear cut intellectual property rights is over-reaching and the decision should be appealed. Unfortunately in the states it is really hard to remove appointed judges, even when they are bat sh1t crazy.

[Syn7]

But assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, and despite the fact that DFW published both a video and a book of the form (markers, changes and all) and that practing that form is somehow steal stealing, then the proper accuasation for people like me (who learned it from my teacher who learned it from Sin The) is receiving stolen goods. Not nearly the same mens rea.

Opens up a whole new dynamic with the sh1t storm doesn't it

If somebody at the top does wrong it affects everyone.


And yes, technically it is receiving stolen goods. But I think a cease and desist order to all students who didn't know the truth is more than enough as far as sentencing is concerned.

[Empty_Cup]

So your position on intellectual property is that all ideas spoken or written should be open source? ...

Nice analogy. SD discussion aside, I actually DO believe that kung fu should be open source. I believe sources should also be honestly disclosed.

Over time, incorporating new material, making it your own, and improving upon it is what made/makes kung fu so great and adaptable even centuries later than it was initially created. I believe it honors our kung fu predecessors even more to adapt and change this system based on internalization of the concepts and practice than it does to say, " My form is EXACTLY the same, down to the wave of my pinky finger, as it was when my great, great, great, great, great grandmaster taught it." Has anybody heard the fable of the grandmaster and student who kept coming back every 10 years?

Does anybody really believe that forms were kept exactly constant after generations of practitioners were taught even in these so-called "pure lineages?" I don't see how that is possible, especially without the use of books, DVDs, or other written documents which are always so frowned upon

[Old Noob]

BTW, I am with you 100% when you (HSK) say that SD should reveal its sources of information. I don't believe that anyone can know a thousand forms and perform each one at the drop of a hat, but I do believe that someone can learn them progressively, forgetting 10 for every ten that have been learned. This seems to be the SD way, from what I've seen of the guys who "collect forms." It's a silly enterprise.

Like JP, I think that there are lies that are told, which fudge the true sources. This isn't stealing, but it is dishonest. That is an issue for SD practitioners, not you. We are the one's defrauded if the material is pawned off as something it is not. You are NOT affected in the least. At best, you're just ****ed off that someone knows your ****, and he isn't doing it pretty enough. Still, it doesn't make that much of a difference except from the perspective of a martial arts historian, whihc is why your point is lost on most SD guys. We aren't looking for a cult of ancestors. Most of us aren't looking for a religion. We're looking for practical martial arts and a way to keep in shape.

Most SD players would likely say: Doc Fai Wong may be the lineage holder of this form, and GM Sin taught the same form to our teachers. We may not trust where GM Sin says that he got his form from, but we often trust our teachers (many of whom are very gifted MA's) make good of it based on their wide experience (and many years of it). And just like in your school, some students will butcher it, and others will develop it. Some teachers will butcher it, some forget it, and some will develop it. They may even develop it in ways you can't imagine.

100% agreement here.

I started SD because my teacher was the best martial artist I saw in the area where I was looking for schools. While I wasn't necessarily looking for lineage legitimacy, I was disappointed when I found out that there was so much dishonesty as to the origins of some of the material in the system. Still, after some soul-searching, I've stayed because: 1) I didn't start for lineage legitimacy in the first place; 2) my sifu is still the best MA in the area and one of the best that I've seen period; 3) my qwoon doesn't have any marshmallows in it - we work and condition hard; 5) I find that the techniques are usable; and 6) the form volume, while ensuring that I'll never get really good at any of them, provide me with enough variation that I don't get bored practicing the techniques in a series of 8 or 9 forms.

I would like to know the real history of the system. I'd like total honesty from the old guard. I'd also like congress to be functional rather than disfunctional, but I'm not going to move out of the U.S.