I'm not sure what you are saying here. But now that you bring this up IMO the "this is for show' and 'not what we really do' is just a 'red flag' (no pun intended) that there is a lot of guess work going on at Shaolin.
As I said most of the martial arts these monks comes from various lay sources not a single lineage. take Shi De Gen, one of his teachers, Wu Shan lin was a layman. Yes yes I know that the claim is that Shan lin's father was once a Shaolin monk. Be that as it may, this lineage actually has very few sets. Shi De Gen was a martial art enthusiast and learned much of his material from other sources - in other words its a mixed bag. As I mentioned in another post somewhere, this is true for the other 'old' monks as well. Most of these people learned after the 1920's. So in a matter of speaking its not that old. All in all it makes for dicy research. I can buy that all this material is a good sampling of what was still around the region in the late 70's but to my mind it's one source and certain not a comprehensive nor a definitive one.
The only reason to bring this up is to make clear that I take what comes out of Shaolin today with salt.
As per my other post, i would agree with Huang Baoshan's (黄寶珊 -1905-1998)
view of this Hong Quan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1h8pyH7Q3Y
also done by a layman in the early 80's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24Nqt...elated&search=
I am assuming that this article also referes to the above set.
http://shaolinwushuyuan.51.net/ywlw/2.htm
Tell me something about Lao Jia Quan and its history. . . any video clips on the net around?
As a pointed out in another forum, Shaolin sets have not only signature movements but a signature structure.
As far as Hong Quan sure I would love to chat about Zhao Kuangyin aka. Taizu vs Zhu Yanzhang aka. Taizu and 紅拳 vs 洪拳. If you're still into it.
r.