Shaolin Boxing before 1780

[rett]

Have that guy ponder some of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTfHdu2EiWA

Is there more of this? (on film I mean)

[LFJ]

Fat chance, or at least, if people have it on film, they're not sharing...

[wenshu]

Have that guy ponder some of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTfHdu2EiWA

Why am I supposed to believe that this is somehow a representation of pre 18th century shaolin? Because some villager said so?

Supposing for a second that they are actual unchanged shaolin forms from 500 years ago, why are they so bad at it?

[LFJ]

I don't know if that comment is really looking for a response, but no. There is a lot more to it. What the say doesn't matter as much. The significance is in the movements themselves.

The mechanics and expression of the sets are not like current Shaolin, so naturally you won't see what you might think is well-executed form by current standard without understanding the style and why they move the way they do. If you could see an entire set performed you'd be impressed, and naturally more so if you understood it.

[wenshu]

The mechanics and expression of the sets are not like current Shaolin, so naturally you won't see what you might think is well-executed form by current standard without understanding the style and why they move the way they do. If you could see an entire set performed you'd be impressed, and naturally more so if you understood it.

Oh, I'm impressed in a 90lb, limpwristed, kung fu hipster,"I practice an obscure village style, you've probably never heard of it" way.

There is absolutely nothing to prove that these movements are any more vaguely reminiscent of pre 18th century shaolin than any other movement in generic northern long fist.

if you understood it.

What is this Shaolin-Do? Keep this cop out reasoning in the Wing Chun forum where it belongs.

[lkfmdc]

at some point, you have to ask, why do the shaolin kool-aid drinkers not see the obvious? HOw can they buy all the BS that is so readily evident?

bad martial arts is just bad martial arts, there is nothing "deep" and there are no secrets

we do understand it, we understand it to be the barnum and bailey of martial arts

[LFJ]

You don't seem particularly interested in discussion of what there is to it either. That's fine. Troll on.

[lkfmdc]

You don't seem particularly interested in discussion of what there is to it either. That's fine. Troll on.

you offer some video and make the claim that it is some secret old school shaolin

we say "actually, NO EVIDENCE that it is old and it is also done really badly"

you say "oh, well, you don't understand it"

we say "no we understand perfectly, it is done badly"

so you scream troll?

people who can't hold a logical line of argument and don't have evidence to support their position often resort to such tactics
tsk tsk

[LFJ]

Wasn't talking to you about trolling. Didn't see your post. But okay.

Not talking about anything "deep" either, but how can you judge something if you don't understand what you're looking at? And by that I mean the function of the actions and therefore the proper way to perform them. I doubt you've seen an entire Mogou village set, much less have any experience with it to say whether it's performed well or not.

And actually there is evidence that it is old. It's pretty obvious to anyone with experience in traditional Shaolin and a good eye for technique. We've discussed it before. It's on the forum here if you care to look.

[lkfmdc]

Not talking about anything "deep" either, but how can you judge something if you don't understand what you're looking at?

why do you assume we don't know what we are looking at?
The is presumptuous of you... and poorly calculated

I have seen a lot of good northern, this is not good

And by that I mean the function of the actions and therefore the proper way to perform them.

double talk... the function of kung fu is to fight... the movements are not performed well...

it is pretty standard northern stuff here, and it is done poorly

I doubt you've seen an entire Mogou village set, much less have any experience with it to say whether it's performed well or not.

they are slow, they lack power, they lack balance, at times they look like they are trying to remember the sequences...

if you see something "deep" there, I feel sorry for you

[CrazyPalms]

here an old form for ya... 1600-1700
http://youtu.be/KXYHY6tmjRk

[lkfmdc]

here an old form for ya... 1600-1700
http://youtu.be/KXYHY6tmjRk

what evidence do you have to say this form was around in 1700???

[LFJ]

@lkfmdc

Since these are the only clips of Mogou village Shaolin online, from one individual, I wouldn't expect many people to be familiar with it. Not that it is anything secret, just not widespread, concentrated in a single village. So, to call me presumptuous if you indeed have no experience with it is taking a bit of a troll attitude, just trying to be smart.

What you are missing though is where the significance lies with this stuff. You can find good and bad performers of any style. So what? Talking evidence there has been plenty of discussion on it here. You can look at Xiaohongquan as done in various villages which each have a timeline, compare the movements and see a logical transformation that couldn't have been done in a short amount of time, given the separation and the way they have transformed and overlap with other things elsewhere and their timelines. It's just irrational to say this was all done in less than a couple hundred years.

[RenDaHai]

There is absolutely nothing to prove that these movements are any more vaguely reminiscent of pre 18th century shaolin than any other movement in generic northern long fist.

There is. I say so. I actually went to this place. When I first went there there was no bus and no good road so I had to walk from the nearest town. It is well up in the mountains to the north of the temple.

History of the village says it is so. The villagers say it is so. The 90 y.o master, the village training hall with dents in the floor like the SHaolin temple, this tells me it is so. History of the other villages near it and even far say it is so. History from the Shaolin temple say it is so. The written Quan pu (manuals) they have say it is so. The language of the manuals implies it is so. The style is too different to be a recent digression and yet too similar to be not Shaolin Hong Quan (and if you have seen how similar modern wushu styles are, you know this is not a recent thing to change the method dramatically). You can literally SEE the evolution of Hong Quan when you compare this style to the current and to the other villages (one of which is the perfect intermediate, inheriting its kung fu from a monk fleeing the massacre in 1641). Shaolin culture is engraved into the mountains. Every village, every tradition. These things take many generations to form.

This style won't fit your preconception of what Shaolin looks like, because these people are not pro MA. They are farmers. They don't do this style for someone else to watch. They do it because it is the culture of their clan passed on for many generations.

Our society owes everything it is to our culture. But because it is hard to analyse, hard to know what the essence of culture is, it is disregarded. And in this time when traditional culture is crumbling beneath our feet, it is wonderful to see it preserved somewhere, and experience it.

[lkfmdc]

and see a logical transformation that couldn't have been done in a short amount of time, given the separation and the way they have transformed and overlap with other things elsewhere and their timelines. It's just irrational to say this was all done in less than a couple hundred years.

you are completely wrong... I"ve been in the arts around 30 years and seen evolution of systems and forms in that period of time

just consider that 50 years ago no one had heard of yip man and only like 50 guys had learned his sets

The sets Wong Fei Hung taught about 100 years ago are so varied now they are no longer recognizable in some forms

you pressume far too much, sorry