Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Judge Pen]

This was not my idea. Lau Bun, the master that he was, knew gung fu isn't supposed to be passed on in a cookie cutter fashion. reiterated via my sifu, i was taught to own my gung fu.

You're missing my point. I have seen, either in person or on video, you, your sifu, DFW, and various other students in your lineage. You can easisly see the commonality of movement in everyone under your lineage. You can also see the differences of each individual based upon their own personal phsycial strengths and weaknesses (owning the gung fu as you put it). But all of it is related and consistent. It is all HSCLF.

[Old Noob]

You're missing my point. I have seen, either in person or on video, you, your sifu, DFW, and various other students in your lineage. You can easisly see the commonality of movement in everyone under your lineage. You can also see the differences of each individual based upon their own personal phsycial strengths and weaknesses (owning the gung fu as you put it). But all of it is related and consistent. It is all HSCLF.

Exactly! This and your last point are spot on.

SD is like that too. Whether a strength or weakness, the diversity of material in our system has created a habit in nearly all of its students to do the material in a similar way - not a karate way but an SD way. Then, within our system, individuals vary it even more based on their individual strengths and weaknesses.

What's really funny as an SD student is how, even within the system, you can spot a Lexington/Colorado/Tennessee/Texas sub-lineage guy by the way he or she moves.

[Judge Pen]

Exactly! This and your last point are spot on.

SD is like that too. Whether a strength or weakness, the diversity of material in our system has created a habit in nearly all of its students to do the material in a similar way - not a karate way but an SD way. Then, within our system, individuals vary it even more based on their individual strengths and weaknesses.

What's really funny as an SD student is how, even within the system, you can spot a Lexington/Colorado/Tennessee/Texas sub-lineage guy by the way he or she moves.

You can, absolutely. Same with Atlanta and Indiana. I "relearned" much of my material from my first teacher when I started training under Master Garry and his sons. Now people in SD argue about who does it "right" when it doesn't matter as long as you do it well and make it work for you.

[Empty_Cup]

Sure, but that can't be the end of the analysis because that is true of any art. I think one of the reasons is that SD is such a patchwork art. You switch from forms and styles of very divergent systems. Tiger, Crane, Hsing-Ie, Tai chi, Pa Kua, Hua, mantis. All these systems have very distinct mechanics, movement, tempo, flow and power generation. For most people that practice SD (in my experience anyway) these forms bleed into one another. The common denominators seem to rise to the surface. Take Frank's videos for example of a non-SD person: his structual aesthetic is very much influenced by his physique and phsyical stengths and limitations. But all he did was HSCLF so his mechanics, altered as theyh are for him as an individual, are all CLF movements.

You can take our best forms person, have them do Hua and have someone that has only trained in hua do the same form and you will see a significant difference. It's not saying that our Hua isn't good, or that the way we trained wasn't effective, but it does intorduce other elements into our forms and distinguishes us, sometimes severly, from people that only practice in a single style or system.

Bold #1: I agree this is the big danger. But a lot of the responsibility is with the practitioner, not the system. It is up to the student to understand the distinct aspects of each system. I liken it to learning multiple languages. Each language has a different accent and grammatical style. You wouldn't try and force Spanish into a Russian accent and grammar. Some folks still do, and have all kinds of trouble and it sounds horrible.

Bold #2: This can be both a bad and a good thing. As mentioned in #1, it's bad if these systems all lose their identity and become some flavorless morass of movement. It's good if these systems can be used to complement each other. How many of you have ever practiced a technique and, using knowledge from another style, had a new understanding of what could make that technique better?

I reject the notion that incorporating elements of different systems into others is a black & white issue. Yes, it can have its downsides. But it can also have its upsides. It's up to the student to get to the principles of the techniques/systems and understand them.

[kwaichang]

Moving like someone does not mean the movemnt is a exact copy of what one sees, learn a series of moves then teach them then look at what you have taught, there is change even at this point. Also if one learns the NATURE OF AN ART SUCH AS , Crane :Bird, Tiger :feline Dragon etc. Then ones moves will be different in each style, but only in essence , not in Physicality, a punch is a punch is a punch, in SD the Lohan or 1-30 are taught as a base. this is why the SD system looks as it does. THe Neuro pathways are ingrained and this bleeds over into the other methods < Tiger etc. so I think it is more of a Neuro training through repetition that causes the style to look as it does, not as some would think , that it is Karate not Kung Fu. KC

[Judge Pen]

Bold #1: I agree this is the big danger. But a lot of the responsibility is with the practitioner, not the system. It is up to the student to understand the distinct aspects of each system. I liken it to learning multiple languages. Each language has a different accent and grammatical style. You wouldn't try and force Spanish into a Russian accent and grammar. Some folks still do, and have all kinds of trouble and it sounds horrible.

Bold #2: This can be both a bad and a good thing. As mentioned in #1, it's bad if these systems all lose their identity and become some flavorless morass of movement. It's good if these systems can be used to complement each other. How many of you have ever practiced a technique and, using knowledge from another style, had a new understanding of what could make that technique better?

I reject the notion that incorporating elements of different systems into others is a black & white issue. Yes, it can have its downsides. But it can also have its upsides. It's up to the student to get to the principles of the techniques/systems and understand them.

Comment to Bold 1: I agree that much of it is on the practitioner, but I don't think you can acquit the system or the teacher. If the teacher/system takes it's time in teacherng the fundamentals of each system, training excercises, philosophy, applications and if they make usre that each student has a fundamental understanding of that system before moving on to something different then I think a patchwork system might work better. All too often, material gets rushed or there is an emphasis on learning the next set. I think that the best examples of SD are from the people that really work on this on their own. I think SD introduces the elements, but many teachers, and students, often rush through it.

Comment to Bold 2: It's not a black and white issue, but when you are teaching, counting seminars, 30 forms before black (and an average of 2.5 to 3.5 years to get there) it seems like it is difficult to truly understand the nuances of a system before moving on to another.

[Judge Pen]

Moving like someone does not mean the movemnt is a exact copy of what one sees, learn a series of moves then teach them then look at what you have taught, there is change even at this point. Also if one learns the NATURE OF AN ART SUCH AS , Crane :Bird, Tiger :feline Dragon etc. Then ones moves will be different in each style, but only in essence , not in Physicality, a punch is a punch is a punch, in SD the Lohan or 1-30 are taught as a base. this is why the SD system looks as it does. THe Neuro pathways are ingrained and this bleeds over into the other methods < Tiger etc. so I think it is more of a Neuro training through repetition that causes the style to look as it does, not as some would think , that it is Karate not Kung Fu. KC

I think you are right. We spend so much time on short form that its the backbone of SD and bleeds into tiger, Tai Pang, Mantis, and most everything else. That is why is was very disconcerting to read in a deposition under oath that the short-form was fabricated by Master The. That he based it on the legends of the 108 Lohan, but he doesn't know the 108 and has never seen it. (This is just what he thought it should look like).

[Judge Pen]

Knowing that he did this, but tried to pass it off as truth, doesn't this bother you? doesn't it make want to question the rest? i know if this happened to me it would be a terrible awakening. i feel bad for all those who've been fooled.

But, if shaolin do is going to survive through all of this, i would hope the truth about its real or unreal connection to Shaolin gets put to rest. Call Shaolin Do a modern system, but as it is, the history is highly questionable

Yes it does bother me. I take testimony under oath very seriously. I have heard it suggested that Sin The lied under oath and this material is legitimate, but he had to claim it as fabricated in order to avail himself the protection of copyright laws. (The tale is that a defense to one of Sin The's early attempts to sue a former student for copyright violations was defended by his brother presenting evidence that the material was not made up and he had notes to prove it.). IF that's true then there might be some legitimate lineage to the material, but it does not condone someone willing to lie under oath to protect his corner of the economy.

The thing about the short-form is that it's pretty good stuff. It's effective as both a means of teaching/training in fundamental martial techniques and the techniques it teaches are efficient and effective. If he made it up from whole cloth, then he has some skill and talent to do so and it's a shame he lied about it. If he didn't make it up, then I'd like to know the true history or lineage of it.

As it stands, I will not know the truth. All I have is my own understanding of the material and the peace I have in myself that I can use it effectively (whatever it is).

[Judge Pen]

i'm sure there is SOMETHING there. however, there arethings like what shaolin temple was destroyed in the mid 1800's?

now, if he made it up, and its effective then give HIM the credit. don't claim it was shaolin. but the moment a teacher is caught lying, i would quetstion everything else.

i've always told my sifu, "even if you taught me pure garbage, you taught me enough to know how to make that garbage work".

We agree on this Frank.

[Fa Xing]

This was not my idea. Lau Bun, the master that he was, knew gung fu isn't supposed to be passed on in a cookie cutter fashion. reiterated via my sifu, i was taught to own my gung fu.

Which is the way it is supposed to be.

[Old Noob]

Yes it does bother me. I take testimony under oath very seriously. I have heard it suggested that Sin The lied under oath and this material is legitimate, but he had to claim it as fabricated in order to avail himself the protection of copyright laws. (The tale is that a defense to one of Sin The's early attempts to sue a former student for copyright violations was defended by his brother presenting evidence that the material was not made up and he had notes to prove it.). IF that's true then there might be some legitimate lineage to the material, but it does not condone someone willing to lie under oath to protect his corner of the economy.

The thing about the short-form is that it's pretty good stuff. It's effective as both a means of teaching/training in fundamental martial techniques and the techniques it teaches are efficient and effective. If he made it up from whole cloth, then he has some skill and talent to do so and it's a shame he lied about it. If he didn't make it up, then I'd like to know the true history or lineage of it.

As it stands, I will not know the truth. All I have is my own understanding of the material and the peace I have in myself that I can use it effectively (whatever it is).

It's incredibly bothersome either way, whether he lied under oath or merely to the entirety of his student body. I probably won't know either way either. But, if he made up the 30 short forms then the odds are that he made up a significant amount of material through at least 1st Black. 18 is all over 1st brown material. 1 and 2 are all over all the material to include the tiger/crane forms he's teaching out now at seminars. This goes back to what JP is saying; of he did make it up, it's good stuff. Why not take the credit. I know that there wasn't much out there in the 60s but Bruce Lee sure didn't suffer in his marketing because he made his stuff up so why would Sin The have suffered if he had marketed SD as an improvement on what the Indonesian masters taught him. It's definitely a mystery. Honestly, I think I'm able to keep trianing in it because my school is so far removed from all the SD centers of gravity and I don't have to get involved in it very much.

[Judge Pen]

It's incredibly bothersome either way, whether he lied under oath or merely to the entirety of his student body. I probably won't know either way either. But, if he made up the 30 short forms then the odds are that he made up a significant amount of material through at least 1st Black. 18 is all over 1st brown material. 1 and 2 are all over all the material to include the tiger/crane forms he's teaching out now at seminars. This goes back to what JP is saying; of he did make it up, it's good stuff. Why not take the credit. I know that there wasn't much out there in the 60s but Bruce Lee sure didn't suffer in his marketing because he made his stuff up so why would Sin The have suffered if he had marketed SD as an improvement on what the Indonesian masters taught him. It's definitely a mystery. Honestly, I think I'm able to keep trianing in it because my school is so far removed from all the SD centers of gravity and I don't have to get involved in it very much.

His justification in the deposition for not taking credit for the forms he claims he created was under the guise of "humility". I don't buy that.

[Fa Xing]

After reading the past posts, I have to say something about the mixing stuff and a little from a JKD perspective: I think cross-training is a fantastic idea with one exception, and that is are you just doing a mish-mash because you can and want to or are you being smart about it and maintaining a specific structure and not sacrificing that structure.

For example, say I am studying and training in Style E (external), my structure while sparring/fighting truly represents that style's structure yet at the same time I have adapted that structure to my own body's structure, thus I am able to make it work. Now let's say I see someone training Style I (internal), and think that it looks really cool and that there is some benefit to that particular movement, so instead of just learning a brand new style altogether (there's nothing wrong with that BTW), I decided I know what works and doesn't work, and therefore pick what I can to absorb for my particular structure. In this way I have not sacrificed what I know for a totally new structure, and thus avoiding "jack of all trades, master of none."

[Empty_Cup]

It's incredibly bothersome either way, whether he lied under oath or merely to the entirety of his student body. I probably won't know either way either. But, if he made up the 30 short forms then the odds are that he made up a significant amount of material through at least 1st Black. 18 is all over 1st brown material. 1 and 2 are all over all the material to include the tiger/crane forms he's teaching out now at seminars. This goes back to what JP is saying; of he did make it up, it's good stuff. Why not take the credit. I know that there wasn't much out there in the 60s but Bruce Lee sure didn't suffer in his marketing because he made his stuff up so why would Sin The have suffered if he had marketed SD as an improvement on what the Indonesian masters taught him. It's definitely a mystery. Honestly, I think I'm able to keep trianing in it because my school is so far removed from all the SD centers of gravity and I don't have to get involved in it very much.

From what I've seen thus far I personally believe that GMT made up the material and it seems like EML's follow-up letter went along with this story. I think this would mean his testimony under oath was sincere but it would also mean the marketing is completely off as far as that material goes. Since I never really cared about the marketing it doesn't effect me or my training, but I definitely agree that this material should be presented honestly.

How much of the material is made up and how much was learned via GM Ie, we'll probably never know. And what is GMT's mindset with regards to correcting/clarifying the current marketing of the material, we might never know that either. As of right now, it appears he's content to let it stand despite the many accusations.

What I do know is that it has no bearing on my relationship with my sifu and the respect I have for him and the material he has taught. There has always been a grain of salt taken with origins of forms and history since so much of it is 4th, 5th, 6th-hand accounts nowadays.

[Old Noob]

After reading the past posts, I have to say something about the mixing stuff and a little from a JKD perspective: I think cross-training is a fantastic idea with one exception, and that is are you just doing a mish-mash because you can and want to or are you being smart about it and maintaining a specific structure and not sacrificing that structure.

I do think that's what SD has done. Like it or not, what some people talk about as the Karateness of SD, relates to the base structure of how we do our material (also, to some extent the way and rapidity with which it is taught). I also don't think that it's being incorporated in a haphazard nonsensical way. I'll mirror again what JP said; if it is made up, its organization is brilliant curriculum-wise.

My biggest problem is just the honesty stuff. I think cross-trianing is preferable. Even in MMA, pure stand-up fighters need to learn enough about wrestling and ju jitsu to defend against it.

I readily incorporated my wrestling into my sparring into the SD curriculum, which is sweep heavy any way. I'm incorporating judo to give me more options for moving the fight to the ground in a decisive fashion and for putting locks on quickly at the end of throws.