Houston Shaolin Kung Fu Academy & The Shaolin Monk Tour

[bungbukuen]

My main point was that Houston Shaolin is predominately a modern wushu school with a forms / performance based curriculum.

Songshan agreed.

When asked what "traditional Shaolin" system is trained at Houston Shaolin, the answer was "Traditional Shaolin". When asked again the answer given was nothing but a forms list. That also is not an answer.

Overall Songshan has not been able tell us what actual system is trained. Either you do not know, or your school is not teaching any specific traditioanl Shaolin system.

Which one is it?

[Songshan]

Bungbukuen,

The phone number to the school is 832-858-3898. You can call and talk directly to Shi Xing Hao. He can answer any questions you still may have.

[bungbukuen]

Songshan - thanks for finally admitting that you do not in fact know what system of Shaolin kungfu you are actually training. Maybe you should also ask your teacher.

[Songshan]

Bungbukuen,

I am not admitting anything. My point is that if you think what Shi Xing Hao is teaching is not shaolin then by all means you can call him and he can answer your questions. So with that being said here is the school phone number again 832-858-3898.

[bungbukuen]

Songshan,

You posted a link to Houston Shaolin.

I said they were teaching modern wushu with no traditional Shaolin kungfu system.

You admited they were teaching modern wushu. You also claimed they were teaching traditional Shaolin.

I then asked you numerous times what traditional system of Shaolin kungfu you were learning. You were never able to answer the question. It was obvious that you did not know. It is also obvious that your teacher has never given you a straight answer either. You now want me to phone the school and check for you.

Is your teacher trying to pull a fast one over you?

[Songshan]

Songshan,

You posted a link to Houston Shaolin

Yep

they were teaching modern wushu with no traditional Shaolin kungfu system.

Wrong

You admited they were teaching modern wushu. You also claimed they were teaching traditional Shaolin.

Right

I then asked you numerous times what traditional system of Shaolin kungfu you were learning. You were never able to answer the question. It was obvious that you did not know. It is also obvious that your teacher has never given you a straight answer either.

Answered this plenty of times for you already. Obviously anything I say will not justify an answer for you.

You now want me to phone the school and check for you

If you really want the answers to your questions by all means you can talk directly to the source. Read the previous post for the phone number to the school.

[GeneChing]

...Shi Xinghao's traditional roots are in Chuo Jiao. I think that was a family style. He comes from a martial lineage and I've heard that his blood brother is quite talented too. Like any youth of his generation, he competed in modern wushu in his early teens, specializing in Changquan. He went to Shaolin later and was one of the first generation of martial monks who worked at the Songshan Shaolin Wushuguan teaching foreigners and touring the world giving performances.

The publicly offered curriculam at the Wushuguan consists of a cluster of fundamental Shaolin forms (see my article Bak Sil Lum vs. Shaolin Temple #3: Who's Got the Real Shaolin Kungfu? for some details on that). Xinghao's program probably derives from that, but I think it's a great disservice to discount this as a "massive list of loosely disconnected and modified forms". To some degree, this has always been the history of Shaolin. It's a repository, so there are tons of different systems floating around there. Each person gives and takes to and from the institution. That's why looking at Shaolin in terms of black & white/wushu & traditional is absurd. It's so vast, you'll see everything, even TKD. There are some modifications to many of the traditional forms, to be sure. If you had to each droves of foreigners, you'd make modifications too. You'd give them something they could digest. I've always thought that what makes Shaolin interesting is those modifications. Many students go to Shaolin, take their tourist lessons, and then leave. Others dig at the roots of each form and find plenty of traditional underpinnings. That being said, I'm sure that Xinghao front ends his students with modified traditional lessons and basic jibengong, just like any traditional school that has a brick-and-mortar to maintain. But for his more advanced students, Xinghao has some fascinating old school stuff. He is one of my favorite monks to work with, in that regard.

[B-Rad]

Most of the current day monks seem to know/teach xiao and da hong quan. It could be argued that there's an old traditional Shaolin "system" right there It can be pretty specific too.

[bungbukuen]

Songshan:
Beyond contemporary wushu and sanda what system of traditional Shaolin kungfu do you study?

Gene:
You said it was a disservice to discount this as a "massive list of loosely disconnected and modified forms". But I just read your past article and you said the exact same thing.

Everyone knows Bak Sil Lum (aka Er Lang Men) is a very traditioanl Shaolin system. You stated Gene that Songshan Shaolin kungfu "contrasted" Bak Sil Lum. In your article you said Bak Sil Lum was a "cohesive curriculum". Then you said "in contrast", Songshan Shaolin "claimed around 200 sets.....beyond the curriculum of contemporary wushu and sanda (free sparring) taught."

You also agreed with some of my earlier comments Gene stating that "there are some modifications to many of the traditional forms."

I know Gene you have to play both sides but please do not back track on things that you have said previously.

Up to this point the facts are clear. Houston Shaolin teaches contemporary wushu, sanda, and a some modified performance based Shaolin forms. This curriculum has absolutely nothing to do with any traditional fighting Shaolin system. Avid students and supporters like Songshan do not know what system Houston Shaolin is training. No surprise. Even the Associate Publisher Gene Ching has argued in past articles that Songshan Shaolin kungfu is not cohesive, and is built upon a contemporary wushu and sanda curriculum.

Cheers

[wall]

bungbukuen ..... it's not my custom to enter other people's discussions not so much to contribute but simply to "take sides" ..... but your persistence is really overwhealming.

Instead of putting words in the "mouths" of Gene or SongShan, who obviously cannot give you "satisfactory" answers, why not just call and ask XingHao as suggested? Perhaps because it's much easier to publicly criticize based on half-infos rather than privately discuss it with the direct source?

Why your compelling need to criticize anyway? It's obviously not a need arousing from sincere interest in knowing, otherwise you would have already picked up the phone and called XingHao to satisfy your curiosity ... and then perhaps posted saying "XingHao told me they do this and that and therefore I think it is a ....... school".

Anyhow, having spent plenty of time with XingHao's brother XingHong, I assume he does a similar curriculum, let's call it the 'contemporary Shaolin curriculum': plenty of traditional, plenty of combat applications and quinna, some modern Shaolin wushu for competition / exibition, some sanda for full contact sparring practice.

I don't see what's wrong in that, what is so "non-traditional", and if you feel that these are not real fighting monks I suggest you go and test XingHao: if he's anything like XingHong I can assure you that you'll change your mind in much less than 10 seconds (XingHong's latest students are the Hungarian special forces, and his latest fans are two top heavyweight K-1 competitors who saw his last seminar at a big local MA festival ).

Wall

[drunkmunky]

to answer the question as to what traditional shaolin system is taught. there are many. the one who posted from houston shaolin said xiao hong quan , pao quan, etc. yes they are hand forms. but they are systems. shaolin is mainly style being taught. if you do research and know anything bou tking fu. you would know that the forms i listed and ones u know r systems taught in many villages in china. like taichi. it is a style. but yet there r different sytems. chen, yang, etc. many masters and whoever went to shaolin in the old days and they taught there sytems there. and it ended up under one style which is shaolin. shaolin doesnt teach the whole system of each style. thats impossible. but it does carry on the knowledge of different systems that was brought there. i dont know if that helps. karate is a style. but has many different variations. but yea. hope it helps. anymore questions or comments u can post here and id answer. and as far as the whole fighting thing goes. there is san da. yes it is modern. but it is fighting none the less. as far as traditional fighting part of shaolin, it is still taught. u just dont see people using it. if u know the forms well enough u would eventually understand the use of each move, or application of the form. that is when u would understand fighting aspect of traditional shaolin. yes it is not taught in shaolin schools. but then again if u dont know how to move well in the form, how to kick right, use energy right. how can u hope to understand and use the applications in the way they r supposed to be used. people like to learn everything so quickly. that y everyone pooping up with blk belt and all that in less than a yr. heck there r even 11 yr olds with blk belts these days. no one has time to understand whatr they r being taught no more

[Songshan]

There have been some pretty good points mentioned here. While I don't think it's entirely absurd to look at shaolin as wushu/traditional, I do think it's imperative that certain forms or "styles" be distinguished as to what is traditional and been handed down through the history of shaolin. I think in some ways this the only way shaolin will survive and not be entirely dismissed as "wushu". I think Gene Ching's latest editorial in the jul/aug issue sums it up the best.

I will say that as a student under a monk, I never try to overstep my boundaries with my shifu. I learn what is taught to me and I am loyal to that. Perhaps this is why I may get mixed up in these debates but on the other hand I never make demands on Shi Xing Hao for information just to fuel these debates. If your a dedicated student then the answers come in due time perhaps during class or after class in a simple conversation. This is why I posted the phone number to the school so bungbukuen can call and find his own answers out for himself. Since all of his posts were repetitive in nature after being given the phone number to the school, it is obvious the true intentions were to instigate some type of argument or just to flame Shaolin. So, bungbukuen call the school if you still would like to know the answer to your questions.

Yes, shaolin is derived from any different "elements". There is a little bit of everything in it and that is what makes it unique. It is also why it's hard to answer what "style" of shaolin is being taught. There's eagle, snake, tiger, mantis and as someone posted earlier frog and scorpion (yes). Shaolin is shaolin pure and simple. At Houston Shaolin Academy not everyone is taught the same thing. Aside from the warm up excercises, the 18 basic postures and the eight levels of the school each student is taught something that is theirs. One student will learn praying mantis, another student will learn tiger, we have students that excel in chang quan...we even have one student who practices the monk spade. So if you have the desire to seek out shaolin it's there. If you don't than by all means that is okay. Again, what works for you works for you.

[bungbukuen]

I have listened to everyone's words very carefully. I was very careful to quote Gene Ching within the context of his online article on Bak Sil Lum & Song Shan Shaolin. As usual Songshan hasn't told us anything except that Houston Shaolin teaches contemporary wushu, sanda, and some Shaolin forms. But still nothing meaningful on the actual traditional SYSTEM of study. In fact I think Songshan has done his school more of a dis-service than anything by presenting poor quality information.

Wall - do you mean the entire Hungarian Special Forces unit has been formally sent by their government to the US to train at Houston Shaolin? I am calling your BS on that. As for the K1 comment, fans do not train, so drop your well crafted K1 public relations BS.

Drunkmunky just screwed things up more for Houston Shaolin. One, Shaolin is not a single system or style. That's like saying I studied at Harvard, and then when someone asks me what I studied, I reply Harvard again (???). Sonshan Shaolin was a Buddhist monetary where many fighting systems were developed - examples of Shaolin systems include Hong Jia Shaolin, Kong Jia Shaolin, Yu Jia Shaolin, Da Sheng Men, Luo Han Men, Wei Tuo Men, Er Lang Men, Wu Xing Quan, and more.

Two, sanda is great, but strategically and technically it is very far away from any of the traditional Shaolin fighting systems, as mentioned above.

Three, Drunkmunky admitted that applications are not taught in Shaolin schools. Very strange (??) Then he said that if you know the forms well enough you will eventually understand the application on your own. This second part is the biggest myth being propagated out of forms based training. In a traditional system forms are simply one very small piece of the training tool. They have their place, but they have very little to do with fighting. And understanding application in theory is not enough. Applications must be drilled live thousands of times over in a progressively freeflowing approach.

So coming back to my original point: Houston Shaolin is a forms based curriculum primarily teaching contemperary wushu, sanda, and a few modifiied (but traditioanl) Shaolin forms. They do not teach anything remotely close to any of the traditional Shaolin combative SYSYTEMS. Shi Xing Hao comes from a contemperary wushu background, with some forms based training at Shaolin. It sounds to me Songshan like you are being lead by blind faith, and these so called Shaolin monks teaching a contemperary curriculum will continue to milk it for everything.

Cheers,

[wall]

Wall - do you mean the entire Hungarian Special Forces unit has been formally sent by their government to the US to train at Houston Shaolin? I am calling your BS on that...

Hi, first rule of efficient communication: listen (or in this case read) carefully other people's points.

I wrote: "XingHong's latest students are the Hungarian special forces...".
XingHONG, not XingHAO. And in fact before that I wrote: "... having spent plenty of time with XingHao's brother XingHong ...".

XingHong lives in Hungary and teaches in Europe.

So much for starting your last post with:

I have listened to everyone's words very carefully.

If this is your idea of listening to everyone's words very carefully I can see why you keep on repeating the same points without ... listening. Or perhaps the problem is exactly that you are listening ... you should be reading the posts, not listening to them

Wall

[Songshan]

I have listened to everyone's words very carefully. I was very careful to quote Gene Ching within the context of his online article on Bak Sil Lum & Song Shan Shaolin. As usual Songshan hasn't told us anything except that Houston Shaolin teaches contemporary wushu, sanda, and some Shaolin forms. But still nothing meaningful on the actual traditional SYSTEM of study. In fact I think Songshan has done his school more of a dis-service than anything by presenting poor quality information.

Wall was totally correct in his post. As usual bungbukuen has misread a lot of posts, put words in peoples mouths and has jumped to a poor conclusions. As I stated before, I am not a self proclaimed "shaolin expert". I merely posted school information about Shi Xing Hao's school, where I train at. By all means if you feel I have not answered your questions about what the school is about then, again, your always more than welcome to call the school as I keep telling you. I find interesting that a simple phone call would confirm or deny your theory/opinions about Houston Shaolin Academy and yet Bungbukuen continually fails to take the opportunity. I am afraid Bungbukuen will never find an answer to his question(s). This has done a dis-service to his reputation.

So coming back to my original point: Houston Shaolin is a forms based curriculum primarily teaching contemperary wushu, sanda, and a few modifiied (but traditioanl) Shaolin forms. They do not teach anything remotely close to any of the traditional Shaolin combative SYSYTEMS. Shi Xing Hao comes from a contemperary wushu background, with some forms based training at Shaolin. It sounds to me Songshan like you are being lead by blind faith, and these so called Shaolin monks teaching a contemperary curriculum will continue to milk it for everything.

Again, another opinion here. This is probably another attempt to instigate something here. If this is what you honestly believe bungbukuen, then by all means it's ok. As I also stated in my previous posts, I am loyal to what Shi Xing Hao teaches. I do not need to prove anything to anyone.....not even you. Find out for yourself on what something is about before jumping to conclusions. Here is the phone number again 832-858-3898. If you are planning to repeat what you have already posted then there isn't really a point to continue this discussion.

Cheers