Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Judge Pen]

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.

I take issue with Leonard's letter. He glossed over what Sin The actually testified to and said "well of course GM The 'simplified' forms for us Americans" With all due respect, fabricating forms and calling them original shaolin material and simplifying traditional material are very different things. It was an opportunity to course-correct SD from as close to the top as you can get, but he kept up the revisionist history.

[Empty_Cup]

I take issue with Leonard's letter. He glossed over what Sin The actually testified to and said "well of course GM The 'simplified' forms for us Americans" With all due respect, fabricating forms and calling them original shaolin material and simplifying traditional material are very different things. It was an opportunity to course-correct SD from as close to the top as you can get, but he kept up the revisionist history.

True. I was specifically referring to the part about how that had been common knowledge and fully disclosed "back in the day." I understand your point and agree that was a pivotal moment.

[brucereiter]

I take issue with Leonard's letter. He glossed over what Sin The actually testified to and said "well of course GM The 'simplified' forms for us Americans" With all due respect, fabricating forms and calling them original shaolin material and simplifying traditional material are very different things. It was an opportunity to course-correct SD from as close to the top as you can get, but he kept up the revisionist history.

Hey man,

Do you know where I can view a copy of bill Leonard's letter? I have searched with no luck.

On a side note several years ago when I asked sin the in private about tai chi 64 and the 24 form he looked me in he eyes and said they are from the shaolin temple and "we" practice them like the monks have for "1000's" of years.

I do believe he lied to my face that day. That was the beginning of the end of my involvement in his system.

Bill leonard may be an amazing fighter and could probably kick my ass. Some of his students may even threaten to kick my ass for sharing some of my opinions here.. Lol...

I will not speak about the external side of sin kwang the system since I did not study it but I will say I think bill Leonard's and sin kwang the's understanding of tai chi chuan, Pakua and hsing I are crazy they are simply doing something entirely different art than every single person I have watched doing those styles. I have been around the world and have met the good, bad and ugly of the ima practicioners. Some great fighters and some people who's heads are in he clouds. None were even similar to the or leonard.

Some people have made excuses like his knees are bad or my least favorite " this is the way it was done back in he temple".

It ****es me off that sin the will not just give a straight answer. I am a grown man, it is insulting to tell me stories lik I was a child. The stories and Santa Claus have something in common. Smelly poo.

And that stupid book he wrote is full of bull****e.

The 64 rules of Pakua we taught to me as if sin the authored them. The papers given to me said written by sin the. It should have said translated by sin the. It was presented as if it was his and that it was passed down from the temple. I had other translations of the same thing. Sin the even used the and drawings that jiang rong qiao's daughter made for jiangs book.

There is just too much bull**** and lies. Why can't they just be open an honest.

The chen tai chi that sin the does and that bill leonard does should be called something else. They have taught zero application or martial methods with this style and in my observations of both of hem doing the chen 83 form ave no understanding of it.

Why is the hsing I soooooooo very different from all other hsing I in the world? Again bill leonard has a strange understanding of what hsing I is.

Booooooooooooooo

[Judge Pen]

Hey man,

Do you know where I can view a copy of bill Leonard's letter? I have searched with no luck.

On a side note several years ago when I asked sin the in private about tai chi 64 and the 24 form he looked me in he eyes and said they are from the shaolin temple and "we" practice them like the monks have for "1000's" of years.

I do believe he lied to my face that day. That was the beginning of the end of my involvement in his system.

Bill leonard may be an amazing fighter and could probably kick my ass. Some of his students may even threaten to kick my ass for sharing some of my opinions here.. Lol...

I will not speak about the external side of sin kwang the system since I did not study it but I will say I think bill Leonard's and sin kwang the's understanding of tai chi chuan, Pakua and hsing I are crazy they are simply doing something entirely different art than every single person I have watched doing those styles. I have been around the world and have met the good, bad and ugly of the ima practicioners. Some great fighters and some people who's heads are in he clouds. None were even similar to the or leonard.

Some people have made excuses like his knees are bad or my least favorite " this is the way it was done back in he temple".

It ****es me off that sin the will not just give a straight answer. I am a grown man, it is insulting to tell me stories lik I was a child. The stories and Santa Claus have something in common. Smelly poo.

And that stupid book he wrote is full of bull****e.

The 64 rules of Pakua we taught to me as if sin the authored them. The papers given to me said written by sin the. It should have said translated by sin the. It was presented as if it was his and that it was passed down from the temple. I had other translations of the same thing. Sin the even used the and drawings that jiang rong qiao's daughter made for jiangs book.

There is just too much bull**** and lies. Why can't they just be open an honest.

The chen tai chi that sin the does and that bill leonard does should be called something else. They have taught zero application or martial methods with this style and in my observations of both of hem doing the chen 83 form ave no understanding of it.

Why is the hsing I soooooooo very different from all other hsing I in the world? Again bill leonard has a strange understanding of what hsing I is.

Booooooooooooooo

Bruce, PM me your e-mail and I'll send you a copy. I printed off a copy after it was written because I suspected it too would be pulled by the powers that be.

As for the rest of the stuff, you won't find me arguing with you at all. I still have great respect for my teachers who taught me directly and believe that they taught with their entire heart and soul, but that can't justify the fairy tales and lies that surround this system.

[Judge Pen]

True. I was specifically referring to the part about how that had been common knowledge and fully disclosed "back in the day." I understand your point and agree that was a pivotal moment.

Yeah, but what he said "was common knowledge" was the simplification of existing forms not the fabrication of new forms. Here there was a black and white statement that was ignored and rephrased into something of an entirely different meaning. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. It's insulting.

[Empty_Cup]

Yeah, but what he said "was common knowledge" was the simplification of existing forms not the fabrication of new forms. Here there was a black and white statement that was ignored and rephrased into something of an entirely different meaning. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. It's insulting.

Yep, EML didn't directly address the statements GMT made in the deposition about making up material and calling them by traditional names. This is what you're referring to when you say "fabrication of new forms," correct?

@ bruce: There were a number of things in your post but I wanted to address what you mentioned about Chen taiji. I haven't traveled the world like you have but from other videos I have seen on the web (including your own) I don't see major differences between those and what I've been taught thus far. What are you referring to specifically when you say, "they have no understanding of it"?

[Judge Pen]

Yep, EML didn't directly address the statements GMT made in the deposition about making up material and calling them by traditional names. This is what you're referring to when you say "fabrication of new forms," correct?

@ bruce: There were a number of things in your post but I wanted to address what you mentioned about Chen taiji. I haven't traveled the world like you have but from other videos I have seen on the web (including your own) I don't see major differences between those and what I've been taught thus far. What are you referring to specifically when you say, "they have no understanding of it"?

Yes that's what I mean. That's what Sin the did and Leonard talked about something else entirely.

[brucereiter]

Yep, EML didn't directly address the statements GMT made in the deposition about making up material and calling them by traditional names. This is what you're referring to when you say "fabrication of new forms," correct?

@ bruce: There were a number of things in your post but I wanted to address what you mentioned about Chen taiji. I haven't traveled the world like you have but from other videos I have seen on the web (including your own) I don't see major differences between those and what I've been taught thus far. What are you referring to specifically when you say, "they have no understanding of it"?

On specific thing I am referring to is in hsing I it is a must that body and hand arrive at the same time. This is defiantly not happening with bill leonard.

Another thing is with tai chi chuan specifically chen style the hands must also submit to the center and move as a result of the center moving. Bill leonard just moves slow and flaps his arms around in my observations.

Pakua they focus more on the stupid animal noises than the actual martial art. Why does no other jiang rong qiao system of Pakua make these silly noises? They tried to tell me it is because they are the real deal and the monks made those same noises.

Full of s.h.i.t.e

I should have said a misguided understanding or a very low level of understanding the use of the word "no" may be a mistake.

I am traveling right now. I will share a few very short videos of both of them doing chen tai chi chuan and hsing I. Then you can see for yourself.

Both arts have specific methods that i see observed in every other system other that sin the and leonard or the soards for that matter.

Take the hsing I or tai chi chuan form as a example. Since I show myself doing it... Look at the way any numbers of people express these styles from any system and you in my opinion will see something very different in sin the and bill leonard. Why is it so different?

[brucereiter]

Yep, EML didn't directly address the statements GMT made in the deposition about making up material and calling them by traditional names. This is what you're referring to when you say "fabrication of new forms," correct?

@ bruce: There were a number of things in your post but I wanted to address what you mentioned about Chen taiji. I haven't traveled the world like you have but from other videos I have seen on the web (including your own) I don't see major differences between those and what I've been taught thus far. What are you referring to specifically when you say, "they have no understanding of it"?

My chen will look more like sin the since I learned it from gary grooms who learned it from sin the but both grooms and I do it very different from sin the and very different from each other. My chen is a *******ized version of what I could pick up from others and what made sense to me. It is not " authentic traditional chen tai chi chuan" that I personally practice but I do think i have created value it it through my own hard practice.

Anyways when I get home I will post a few short videos and you can share your observations with me.

My videos only show my level of understanding on the day I made them. I am only a student... Not a "grandmaster" or 9th degree elder master. I would expect more from the and leonard and was very disappointed once I really saw and understood what they were showing and teaching.

[bodhi warrior]

My chen will look more like sin the since I learned it from gary grooms who learned it from sin the but both grooms and I do it very different from sin the and very different from each other. My chen is a *******ized version of what I could pick up from others and what made sense to me. It is not " authentic traditional chen tai chi chuan" that I personally practice but I do think i have created value it it through my own hard practice.

Anyways when I get home I will post a few short videos and you can share your observations with me.

My videos only show my level of understanding on the day I made them. I am only a student... Not a "grandmaster" or 9th degree elder master. I would expect more from the and leonard and was very disappointed once I really saw and understood what they were showing and teaching.

I learned pakua back in '85 or '86 from sin the'. It was a month or two class. We were never taught to make animal noises. But I've seen numerous videos of Ted mancuso, Novell bell, jerry Allen Johnson, kang gewu, and Gerald sharp and I can say our jiang form is very close to how others perform it. And each of those masters had their own flavor and way of moving.

[Judge Pen]

I learned pakua back in '85 or '86 from sin the'. It was a month or two class. We were never taught to make animal noises. But I've seen numerous videos of Ted mancuso, Novell bell, jerry Allen Johnson, kang gewu, and Gerald sharp and I can say our jiang form is very close to how others perform it. And each of those masters had their own flavor and way of moving.

I was told by my teacher that it was optional to make a bat noise int he 4th section. I never did it.

[Old Noob]

Perhaps you are talking about two different Pa Kua forms? The 1st Black Pa Kua doesn't have any animal noises as far as I know. There's an animal Pa Kua form later; no?

[Empty_Cup]

...
I am traveling right now. I will share a few very short videos of both of them doing chen tai chi chuan and hsing I. Then you can see for yourself.

...

Sounds good.

...My chen is a *******ized version of what I could pick up from others and what made sense to me. It is not " authentic traditional chen tai chi chuan" that I personally practice but I do think i have created value it it through my own hard practice.

...

I don't think anybody really knows what authentic chen looks like anymore. Taking the practice and making it work for you based on your understanding is definitely the goal of all of this in my opinion! Sounds great, and can't wait to see what you post. This kind of discussion is the reason I came to this forum for sure.

[Empty_Cup]

Perhaps you are talking about two different Pa Kua forms? The 1st Black Pa Kua doesn't have any animal noises as far as I know. There's an animal Pa Kua form later; no?

I am currently training Classical Pa Kua and have seen 8 Animal Pa Kua performed. Classical does not have any animal noises and 8 Animal does not have a bat at all. The animals are (in the set we practice) Phoenix, Dragon, Bear, Tiger, Snake, Monkey, Horse, Eagle. These also do not have an animal noise associated or performed with them IIRC. Again, I have only seen 8 Animal performed a couple times and have not learned it yet.

EDIT: Here is the pinyin for the 8 Animal form we practice, for those interested: Ba Gua Zhang Ba Xing Zhang

[Judge Pen]

I was told by my teachers that you can do a bat sound in section 4. They did not do it personally when they performed the form, but that is what Sin The taught my teacher. I would suspect that this is often not taught or discussed because, frankly, its silly.

My first teacher did not teach that.

By the way, how many are taught to laugh in Hsing Ie? Other animal sounds in other forms?