Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[Baqualin]

This has nothing to do with this thread but in case you guys didn't see these vid's take a look.....these are of a 60 yr. old Master in the Monkey King's system that Flying Monkey is studying....JP & KFJ pay attention to his back foot placement in the low stances & landings....no roll over to the arch side , foot is always flat on the ground and at the proper angle ....his biomechanics are awesome....KFJ this is a great example for you to take note of as someone who wants to teach. His form reminds me of Master Ben's in the Lex. school (except for the age difference:D )
Here is Master Chow Keung... 2 of the sets were done slow, I am guessing for one of his students...

Gow jow kwun, 9 continents staff...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7hf1rqnsi4

Double Handed Broadsword:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdfiZe6xRr0

Lost Monkey Form:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz7QLd2Qh34

[Baqualin]

we say that to prove the point that is so richly debated here.

since you all claim we do not do shaolin kung fu when someone else is doing it we say they are doing what we do to prove the point that we are doing shaolin kung fu

also we get the impression no matter what proof we offer you will continue to deny it

so whats the point anymore?

The point is our forms are real and it's up to each of us in SD that are serious MA to take what we enjoy and try to master it the best we can...we're dealing with a handful of people here on these forums who just like us will believe what they believe no matter what, I've met some really knowledgeable people on here like flying monkey, Yao sing, citong sifu, MK, & others that have my respect (even they can be a pain in the butt). With that said I could care less what they think of SD....33 years has proven more than enough for me. I have eyes that see and have been watching for 40 yrs....heck I was doing Baqua before most MA even knew what it was.....I will gladly post a video of me doing this if someone will help me...KC? Not to prove a point, but to receive constructive criticism...to improve!

So the point really is it's all a matter of opinion and we all know what that means;)

By the way FLM my favorite soft drink is Pepsi I like the flavor!!!

[The Xia]

Thanks man. No name yet.

Xia, I understand what you are saying, but it still seems that you are complaining of the performance and not the form. I'm asking about the form not the incorrect way someone may be doing stances. I can show you the same form, but its going to have all the things that I do wrong go along with it (my stances are the best and my flexibility is horrible so I compensate in incorrect ways sometimes to do a particular form). The performance isn't the point--its the structure of the set that I'm asking about.....were the techniques cma, ima, jma or other?
First off, let me start out by saying that I'm only judging the bit of the form I watched from Alex Huynh, not any of the other stuff shown on that clip. From what I see, is it a TCMA form? I'd say it was (from what little I saw). Was it performed in a traditional manner? Nope. It screamed contemporary Wushu to me. His stance was one of the biggest giveaways. Doing what he did doesn't generate power and doesn't provide a stable stance. That's why you will not see it from a skilled traditionalist. Contemporary Wushu is all about aesthetics. A skilled contemporary Wushu player has a lot of speed, flexibility, and agility. They are tremendous athletes. However, it is not martial arts. They have a complete lack of power, applications are unheard of, etc. There is nothing martial about it. Contemporary Wushu takes martial forms and strips it of everything martial while dazzling it up. That is what I saw in the brief clip of Alex Huynh's performance. It may be a traditional form, but it didn't look like it was done traditional to me. It looked like contemporary Wushu. I didn't see power, the stance work was off, etc.

[Flying-Monkey]

I watched the video from the SD site. I must say, without a doubt, that .....

[Flying-Monkey]

it is not kung fu.

[kungfujunky]

what a comprehensive and well thought out answer

:rolleyes:

[Flying-Monkey]

..you posting a video of you doing a form or two, seeing as you are such an expert on what is and is not shaolin and / or kung fu and /or TCMA ,and let us all decide as to whether it is or is not shaolin or kung fu or TCMA....then one of us will do the same ...only seems fair....you seem to be leading the charge here and quite frankly you have proven nothing other than you are a keyboard martial artist who lives vicariously through others and has no skills of their own to speak of other than talking SH*T!!! You are overly critical of others , biased, lack any depth or openmindedness and continue to talk in circles about the same SH*T over and over ....I think you should put up or shut up !!!!

What is your obsession with The Xia posting forms? I basically agree with everything he states. However, you do not badger me to post forms of myself. It does not matter if he is a master or just someone who studies CMA has a hobby and does not practice. Everything he is writing is true.

His questions go unanswered. His opinions are ignored. Which I feel is unfortunate for the people who do not listen.

[Flying-Monkey]

what a comprehensive and well thought out answer

:rolleyes:

you are welcome.

[BentMonk]

First off, let me start out by saying that I'm only judging the bit of the form I watched from Alex Huynh, not any of the other stuff shown on that clip. From what I see, is it a TCMA form? I'd say it was. Was it performed in a traditional manner? Nope. It screamed contemporary Wushu to me. His stance was one of the biggest giveaways. Doing what he did doesn't generate power and doesn't provide a stable stance. That's why you will not see it from a skilled traditionalist. Contemporary Wushu is all about aesthetics. A skilled contemporary Wushu player has a lot of speed, flexibility, and agility. They are tremendous athletes. However, it is not martial arts. They have a complete lack of power, applications are unheard of, etc. There is nothing martial about it. Contemporary Wushu takes martial forms and strips it of everything martial while dazzling it up. That is what I saw in the brief clip of Alex Huynh's performance. It may be a traditional form, but it didn't look like it was done traditional to me. It looked like contemporary Wushu. I didn't see power, the stance work was off, etc.

I am curious. On what knowledge and experience do you base your criticisms? I'm not trying to be antagonistic. Your writing style indicates that you consider yourself to be some what of an authority on TCMA. I would like to know your qualifications.

I have had a life long interest in MA, TCMA in particular. I am very well read on the subject. I have studied formally for 12 years. I consider my credentials to be meager at best. That is why you will not find me being overly critical of anyone. I am still a beginner. IMO anyone with less than 10 years experience doing most things is not qualified to offer more than an educated opinion.

Again, I am not trying to be disrespectful. I just feel that if someone is going to speak with authority on a subject, they should be able to readily validate that authority.

[BentMonk]

it is not kung fu.

Please elaborate.

[Baqualin]

First off, let me start out by saying that I'm only judging the bit of the form I watched from Alex Huynh, not any of the other stuff shown on that clip. From what I see, is it a TCMA form? I'd say it was (from what little I saw). Was it performed in a traditional manner? Nope. It screamed contemporary Wushu to me. His stance was one of the biggest giveaways. Doing what he did doesn't generate power and doesn't provide a stable stance. That's why you will not see it from a skilled traditionalist. Contemporary Wushu is all about aesthetics. A skilled contemporary Wushu player has a lot of speed, flexibility, and agility. They are tremendous athletes. However, it is not martial arts. They have a complete lack of power, applications are unheard of, etc. There is nothing martial about it. Contemporary Wushu takes martial forms and strips it of everything martial while dazzling it up. That is what I saw in the brief clip of Alex Huynh's performance. It may be a traditional form, but it didn't look like it was done traditional to me. It looked like contemporary Wushu. I didn't see power, the stance work was off, etc.

This is your best post yet....I agree with your take on the clip & you didn't repeat the words of FLM it was your own words...you've earned my respect:)

[kwaichang]

Hey I will help you I can Video tape it this w/e if you want and convert it to DVD and post it I will be there for the monkey seminar let me know KC

[The Xia]

I posted my opinion because of a request by Judge Pen. I knew I’d get some flack for it. Instead of asking yourself if I am qualified to say such things, ask yourself if you have issues with any of the content of my post. If you do have a disagreement, we can discuss it, so long as you do not use diversionary tactics and are not insulting.


I will elaborate on that stance.

You may be wondering why I am preoccupied with mentioning that stance as evidence for Huynh doing PRC Wushu and not TCMA. It is because it is a mistake often made by complete, first time ever doing martial arts, beginners. Let's look at what is wrong with it. As I said before, when performing a stance that is deep and wide, the untrained body's natural tendency is to stick the behind out and arch the back. It relieves the stress generated by the stance. Let's examine why this is wrong. First, let's state the obvious, good Kung Fu isn't easy. Doing stances correctly may be difficult, but it conditions you. If the stance is done in the way which I criticize, the practitioner will not become properly conditioned for the style. Now, let's look at the martial weaknesses of doing the stance in the manner demonstrated by Huynh. Flying Monkey pointed out that it lacks power. This is true. The most powerful punches come from using the whole body in synch. Power can be derived from the hips and shoulders. Try doing the stance in Huynh's manner. Now try generating power. You'll see what I mean. Next, the stance isn't stable. It's wobbly. Many old school teachers corrected repeated mistakes of wobbly stances by sweeping the student to the ground. Try that stance, and ask yourself if you can be easily swept. Once again, you'll see what I mean. The stance done in the manner demonstrated by Huynh may be aesthetically pleasing, but it is not martial. It's a red flag that the person is either a traditionalist that needs work, someone with a bad teacher, or a contemporary Wushu artist.

[Flying-Monkey]

Please elaborate.

I will try.

Master Matt Small's broad sword was not good. He is a master, but he is showing poor right and left hand technique. The left hand has a job went doing broad sword. It should be moving most of the time. However, I noticed it stays in front of his chest. One important thing is that the technique where he wraps the sword around his back then up over his shoulder is wrong. The slashes and thrusts are wrong too. There are almost no stances in that form except for a cat and halfass bow stance once in a while.

As for Abram Tamez, I have never seen the form he is doing, so I cannot comment on the on the pattern. However, his stances are terrible (kind of like my spelling at times). The movements were strange at best.

And the guy wearing the rice farmer hat in the background while Abram was doing his form need an ass kicking.

I am at work now some I will comment later.

[tattooedmonk]

What is your obsession with The Xia posting forms? I basically agree with everything he states. However, you do not badger me to post forms of myself. It does not matter if he is a master or just someone who studies CMA has a hobby and does not practice. Everything he is writing is true.

His questions go unanswered. His opinions are ignored. Which I feel is unfortunate for the people who do not listen....why not post some then?? it does matter if he is some bull sh*t talking keyboard martialartist or a real authentic martialartist...you can not sit on the sidelines and judge or criticize without actual experience..if you are and alcoholic and you wanted to recover who would you trust to help you.... an actual recovered alcoholic or someone who have studied this type of behavior from a book and videoswith no personal experience????get a clue...

his questions have been answered and he has chossen to ignore them...this means that he is too ignorant or stupid to see the truth ...this goes for you as well ......all we have heard from him( and you) is his(your) opinion....... and you know what they say ...opinions are like a$$holes.......everyones got one...but all I hear is ****s and all I can smell is $hit!!!

[tattooedmonk]

I will try.

Master Matt Small's broad sword was not good. He is a master, but he is showing poor right and left hand technique. The left hand has a job went doing broad sword. It should be moving most of the time. However, I noticed it stays in front of his chest. One important thing is that the technique where he wraps the sword around his back then up over his shoulder is wrong. The slashes and thrusts are wrong too. There are almost no stances in that form except for a cat and halfass bow stance once in a while.

As for Abram Tamez, I have never seen the form he is doing, so I cannot comment on the on the pattern. However, his stances are terrible (kind of like my spelling at times). The movements were strange at best.

And the guy wearing the rice farmer hat in the background while Abram was doing his form need an ass kicking.

I am at work now some I will comment later. and why is this not kung fu?? I know why it is not ...but it has nothing to do with the form...like I said when these forms were first presented it is the performers and not the contents of the form... these are authentic chinese shaolin forms.. the techniques, no matter how badly they are performed, are clearly chinese in origin!!!they are in forms that have been posted on this forum ....so explain that...and not some bull sh*t half a$$ed explanation either!!!

[tattooedmonk]

I will try.

Master Matt Small's broad sword was not good. He is a master, but he is showing poor right and left hand technique. The left hand has a job went doing broad sword. It should be moving most of the time. However, I noticed it stays in front of his chest. One important thing is that the technique where he wraps the sword around his back then up over his shoulder is wrong. The slashes and thrusts are wrong too. There are almost no stances in that form except for a cat and halfass bow stance once in a while.

As for Abram Tamez, I have never seen the form he is doing, so I cannot comment on the on the pattern. However, his stances are terrible (kind of like my spelling at times). The movements were strange at best.

And the guy wearing the rice farmer hat in the background while Abram was doing his form need an ass kicking.

I am at work now some I will comment later.abram is suppose to be performing tiger crane duet form and he is doing it awfully!!!

[Baqualin]

Hey I will help you I can Video tape it this w/e if you want and convert it to DVD and post it I will be there for the monkey seminar let me know KC

Bring your camera!!:cool:

[Baqualin]

abram is suppose to be performing tiger crane duet form and he is doing it awfully!!!

I didn't even recognize it.

[Invincible Yang]

Hey Baqualin, how many monkey forms are there in shaolin-do? Also missed you in class today.

[tattooedmonk]

I didn't even recognize it.if it was not for the name ..nor would I have!!!

[Flying-Monkey]

and why is this not kung fu?? I know why it is not ...but it has nothing to do with the form...like I said when these forms were first presented it is the performers and not the contents of the form... these are authentic chinese shaolin forms.. the techniques, no matter how badly they are performed, are clearly chinese in origin!!!they are in forms that have been posted on this forum ....so explain that...and not some bull sh*t half a$$ed explanation either!!!

It is not kung fu. The things you know about kung fu can fit on the back of a matchbook.

What you posted (your comments) is garbage. Swinging Chinese weapons around does not make it kung fu. So what if the pattern is the same. They are done so poorly one cannot tell which form it is suppose to be. These forms are not done properly. If these are "black belts", then that says a lot about SD.

GM Sin The might of knew kung fu before, but he does not know it now. He is not teaching it.

You are corny and I am tired of you. You are probably in that video.

I tired to debate with other SD guys calmly and everything went well. As soon as you start posting, things got messed up for both sides. You are not helping SD at all.

The weapon forms in that video were ghastly. I won't trust those guys with a potato gun let alone a live blade.

The hand forms showed little understanding of CMA basics. They looked like they learned from a retard in tights.

To the other SD guys: I am sorry. I thought we were doing well in trying to understand each other and trying to get to the bottom of what SD is, what kung fu is and what CMA is. However, tattooedmonk has to put his 2 cent in that hurts SD more than helps. So I am sorry for this post that is out of my character.

To Gene:

If you want to ban me, that is your choice. And I am sorry you feel that way. However, the fact that you didn't ban Tattooed monk months ago troubles me. He has been rude, disrespectful and he posts comments that are baiting people into arguments.

[godzillakungfu]

I will try.

Master Matt Small's broad sword was not good. He is a master, but he is showing poor right and left hand technique. The left hand has a job went doing broad sword. It should be moving most of the time. However, I noticed it stays in front of his chest. One important thing is that the technique where he wraps the sword around his back then up over his shoulder is wrong. The slashes and thrusts are wrong too. There are almost no stances in that form except for a cat and halfass bow stance once in a while.

As for Abram Tamez, I have never seen the form he is doing, so I cannot comment on the on the pattern. However, his stances are terrible (kind of like my spelling at times). The movements were strange at best.

And the guy wearing the rice farmer hat in the background while Abram was doing his form need an ass kicking.

I am at work now some I will comment later.HAHAHAHAHA. You hit 2/3 on the dot.

Sorry, MS actually does good stance work. He is usually very picky. Picky to the point he can be an ......! I still wonder who picks the vids.

FM next time send it in a PM. You raise valid points IMO. That is why you aren't getting beat down.

The XIA posts come across as angryr so, he gets more attention.

Basically, you sound like you doubt but, you are seriously trying to get answers.

The Xia, for the most part, sounds like he is flaming. No offense XIA.


Hey, put TTM on ignore. I like your posts.

[The Xia]

I have exercised a lot of self-restraint, even before Gene's warnings (notice how I dealt with tattooedmonk calling me an idiot?). I left the thread for awhile and returned only to bring to light that Alex Huynh isn't without criticism. Then, I was asked what I think of Alex Huynh's form performance on that clip. I answered the question, which came from the rational and friendly Judge Pen, despite the fact that I knew some on this thread would ignore the content of the post and look to the poster. Alex Huynh has nothing to do with Shaolin Do. Therefore, whatever I say about his performance on the clip should be fair game according to the new rules. There was no flaming involved. I was politely asked a question and I politely responded. Judge Pen, who asked the question, didn't make any comments about my post being a flame post. The one whom I answered the question for didn’t take issue with me. Those who did take issue with what I said, I expected that. However, I answered because Judge Pen asked me. Besides commentary on Alex Huynh’s form, I stated a fair point, "There have not been any videos posted of what you guys consider to be good Shaolin Do. If someone posts some videos of what he considers to be good Shaolin Do we can compare." I see nothing flaming about that post. It was, however, met with tattooedmonk's insulting replies, which I ignored.

[kungfujunky]

what type of form should we present here for you all?

[godzillakungfu]

FM asks questions.
You demand answers.

Both are similar but, they recieve different responses.

I can't be any less confusing.

I was explaining to FM why, IMO, he wasn't getting jumped on like you.


Everyone has their posting style that is why, I said no offense. It is my opinion.

[tattooedmonk]

It is not kung fu. The things you know about kung fu can fit on the back of a matchbook.

What you posted (your comments) is garbage. Swinging Chinese weapons around does not make it kung fu. So what if the pattern is the same. They are done so poorly one cannot tell which form it is suppose to be. These forms are not done properly. If these are "black belts", then that says a lot about SD.

GM Sin The might of knew kung fu before, but he does not know it now. He is not teaching it.

You are corny and I am tired of you. You are probably in that video.

I tired to debate with other SD guys calmly and everything went well. As soon as you start posting, things got messed up for both sides. You are not helping SD at all.

The weapon forms in that video were ghastly. I won't trust those guys with a potato gun let alone a live blade.

The hand forms showed little understanding of CMA basics. They looked like they learned from a retard in tights.

To the other SD guys: I am sorry. I thought we were doing well in trying to understand each other and trying to get to the bottom of what SD is, what kung fu is and what CMA is. However, tattooedmonk has to put his 2 cent in that hurts SD more than helps. So I am sorry for this post that is out of my character.

To Gene:

If you want to ban me, that is your choice. And I am sorry you feel that way. However, the fact that you didn't ban Tattooed monk months ago troubles me. He has been rude, disrespectful and he posts comments that are baiting people into arguments.you stll have yet to answer the questions that have been asked by SDers..we have been more than happy to answer yours now you answer ours...go back through the posts and reread them and see where you have not and then post a response...quit your crying..... you are suppose to be a martial artists ...my posts reflect my opinion based on my experince,facts, and views ..you are have yours iIhave mine.....

[Flying-Monkey]

What's the question?

[Judge Pen]

FM, I specifically liked the chain whip videos that were at the CSC site. Could you comment on those please. And understand that the Chinese Shaolin Center, the SDA, and my teacher's group all learned from the same place, but there's often large differences on how each group may be taught or the material might be performed. So there's always a bit of politics involved in commenting on forms from another school. There was A LOT about those videos that I didn't like either and agree with the points you and the Xia made. There were some pretty good forms there too.

For the record, I didn't recognize the Tiger-Crane form either. After I noticed the name of the form I had to re-watch it twice to figure out what part of the form he was doing, and this is one of my favorite forms. Go figure.

[BentMonk]

Since when does poor form determine authenticity? My stances are deplorable. My body mechanics are flawed. Does this make the Xing Yi I practice not a TCMA? I use Xing Yi because it is one thing that some SD practitioners have been complimented on. Also, it seems that whenever evidence is presented that SD is CMA, ie; the videos that have been posted recently, it is dismissed as poorly performed wushu, or chalked up to coincidence. It seems there is nothing that will appease either side of this debate. Perhaps KC and friends can help.

[SDJerry]

Over three thousand posts and where are we... exactly where we began. The dead horse is barely recognizable anymore :D I think if you had to post a clip of yourself before criticizing others this puppy wouldn't have made it past 20.

[Golden Tiger]

I agree there are some good videos there (like the ones you mentioned). There's also a few BAD ones including the people doing hua and chen tai chi. Sorry if that offends anyone and I'm certainly not saying that I do any of them better.

Here's a more direct link: http://www.shao-lin.com/Category.cfm?CategoryID=28


Finally got around to watching this one. I wasn't aware that it had been put up.

And for my humble opinion, that is a decent representation of SD, content and performace wise. I say that because most of the forms (more on that later) were close to how they were taught. And as to the performances, if you take a cross section of SD, that is what you will get. None if any are professional MA's that spend 20 hours of the day working out.

As to the material itsself. I thought it was funny how while the newer stuff they did was extremely close to what we do, the older things like Tiger-Crane, pang lung pang, tang lang chien, hua chien..etc, weren't even close. They were done ok I guess, but it was not close to the way that Master Sin taught them out, and I learned them when he taught them out.

I guess that just shows what years of isolation can do to the evolution of the forms. And it wasn't so much things added and lost, but more the intent of the moves gone. Oh well.

But again, I will stand by my statement that content wise, that was pure SD.

[Green Cloud]

it is not kung fu.

Sorry for jumping in here so late my flash player wasn't working. Just to be objective after watching the SD vids I can see that it has a lot of Kung Fu influence but it's definately not traditional Kung Fu.

The SD players seem to be Jack of all trades but masters of none, it was quite evident that more than a few styles were mixed together.

Some of the Videos looked Northen in their movement but The names realy don't match the forms. For instance the guy performing Chen Tai Chi looked nothing like Chen, If you don't believe me just go to u tube and type in Chen tai Chi.

It seems that the Kung Fu moves are in there but Karate fied and choppy at times.

Once again I am speaking from an objective point of view and not as a traditionalist.

As a traditionalist I'd have to say that these forms are kempo and as kempo does they have borrowed stuff from a lot of styles. For instance the Broad sword play resemled the movements of a machety not a traditional Dan Dao.

The two man Pak gwa was real but the demonstartors were to rigid wich made the form look unrecognizable. Almost like a Karate guy who learned it on video but was unable to grasp the fluidity.

Any way I'm not here to debate wether or not SD is real or not. Obviously it exists so it's real. Wether it's real bad Kung Fu or real good Kung Fu is the real question here.

[Green Cloud]

it is not kung fu.

Sorry for jumping in here so late my flash player wasn't working. Just to be objective after watching the SD vids I can see that it has a lot of Kung Fu influence but it's definately not traditional Kung Fu.

The SD players seem to be Jack of all trades but masters of none, it was quite evident that more than a few styles were mixed together.

Some of the Videos looked Northen in their movement but The names realy don't match the forms. For instance the guy performing Chen Tai Chi looked nothing like Chen, If you don't believe me just go to u tube and type in Chen tai Chi.

It seems that the Kung Fu moves are in there but Karate fied and choppy at times.

Once again I am speaking from an objective point of view and not as a traditionalist.

As a traditionalist I'd have to say that these forms are kempo and as kempo does they have borrowed stuff from a lot of styles. For instance the Broad sword play resemled the movements of a machety not a traditional Dan Dao.

The two man Pak gwa was real but the demonstartors were to rigid wich made the form look unrecognizable. Almost like a Karate guy who learned it on video but was unable to grasp the fluidity.

Any way I'm not here to debate wether or not SD is real or not. Obviously it exists so it's real. Wether it's real bad Kung Fu or real good Kung Fu is the real question here.

[Judge Pen]

Sorry for jumping in here so late my flash player wasn't working. Just to be objective after watching the SD vids I can see that it has a lot of Kung Fu influence but it's definately not traditional Kung Fu.

The SD players seem to be Jack of all trades but masters of none, it was quite evident that more than a few styles were mixed together.

Agreed. That was easy. There's the argument that the way SD's curriculim is put together that your skills improve and you become a master of SD, but that's not the same thing as saying that you are a master of any of the individual styles that are represented in SD.

Some of the Videos looked Northen in their movement but The names realy don't match the forms. For instance the guy performing Chen Tai Chi looked nothing like Chen, If you don't believe me just go to u tube and type in Chen tai Chi.

Agreed. I don't like this representation of Chen Tai Chi. I don't know the entire form, but he is not doing it like the Chen I've seen elsewhere.

It seems that the Kung Fu moves are in there but Karate fied and choppy at times.

Agreed. If you watch master The' and his senior students, many of them are power oriented and that certainly changes the nature of the forms and the principles of power generation from time to time. I don't think it was a karate person learning a chinee form but a person putting their own spin on how a form should be done--i.e. hard and snappy--and that changes the intent of the form.

Once again I am speaking from an objective point of view and not as a traditionalist.

As a traditionalist I'd have to say that these forms are kempo and as kempo does they have borrowed stuff from a lot of styles. For instance the Broad sword play resemled the movements of a machety not a traditional Dan Dao.

I wouldn't say kempo because I honestly believe that the Japanese influence on SD was more cosmetic than anything. I would say kung tao (NOT Silat) in that the forms became something different based upon interpretation as passed through Indonesia and then Kentucky. Look at what GT said about how the CSC forms have changed from how he learned them years ago. Its the same principle displayed on a more local level. But to me Kempo implies more of a Japanese influence than I actually think is present here. Ask any JMA person and they would deny that SD is anything like karate.

The two man Pak gwa was real but the demonstartors were to rigid wich made the form look unrecognizable. Almost like a Karate guy who learned it on video but was unable to grasp the fluidity.

The Pa Kua form is as real as it gets. It is taught more rigid then CMA people perform it. Many high level people learn to losen up and become fluid, but only those that really practice it and study the 64 principles and try to apply them to their form (yes all 64 principles are passed down in the notes, but often times the form is passed on too quickly and the emphasis is too rigid.

Any way I'm not here to debate wether or not SD is real or not. Obviously it exists so it's real. Wether it's real bad Kung Fu or real good Kung Fu is the real question here.

Obviously my comments were in bold.

[Green Cloud]

It's alway nice talking to you JP:)

[Fei jiao]

If you watch master The' and his senior students, many of them are power oriented and that certainly changes the nature of the forms and the principles of power generation from time to time.

Power oriented?
What makes you think power has to be stiff? What makes you think soft and fluid means powerless? Those are concepts that are hard to grasp unless you've taught by a traditional Chinese martial arts master.

The Pa Kua form is as real as it gets. It is taught more rigid then CMA people perform it.

So you agree that SDers aren't CMAers?

[taichi4eva]

For all the SD practicioners,

I'm at UCLA right now and while I was at the gym, I met a freshmen who does Shaolin Do. I asked if he could demonstrate his "lo han chien" (fist of lohan) and "se mun tau lie" (four gates). The forms seemed really strange to me- I couldn't identify some of the stances (I don't practice Southern Shaolin so I don't know), and the hand postures seemed really awkward. Plus, the other thing that got to me was that he would transition from a middle horse stance to one where his behind must have been inches from the floor!

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but can somebody tell me what's the purpose? These forms were supposed to be beginner forms. And Shaolin forms are usually very "clear" at the beginning.

[Judge Pen]

Power oriented?
What makes you think power has to be stiff? What makes you think soft and fluid means powerless? Those are concepts that are hard to grasp unless you've taught by a traditional Chinese martial arts master.



So you agree that SDers aren't CMAers?

I don't think that power has to be stiff, but I think that snap and directness are encouraged in SD and that creates a problem in interpreting a CMA form. I don't think it has to be this way, but many of the senior level students perform them this way. Other students do not, and you get a divergence within SD whith neither being the way many TCMA would recognize it.

I think that the forms were CMA and I think that the way they have been taught and passed down through Indonesia and then in America have given them their own unique flavor. Like the difference between Scotch Whisky and Bourbon Whiskey.

[Judge Pen]

For all the SD practicioners,

I'm at UCLA right now and while I was at the gym, I met a freshmen who does Shaolin Do. I asked if he could demonstrate his "lo han chien" (fist of lohan) and "se mun tau lie" (four gates). The forms seemed really strange to me- I couldn't identify some of the stances (I don't practice Southern Shaolin so I don't know), and the hand postures seemed really awkward. Plus, the other thing that got to me was that he would transition from a middle horse stance to one where his behind must have been inches from the floor!

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but can somebody tell me what's the purpose? These forms were supposed to be beginner forms. And Shaolin forms are usually very "clear" at the beginning.

These are beginer forms taught in SD. I honestly believe that "se mun tai lie" to use your spelling is nothing more than an excercise/drill that was made into a "form". I think this form is designed to teach power transfer while switching from a horse stance to a bow stance. I don't think the hand positions are ackward, but I don't know how it was demo'ed for you. His but should NOT have been that low in a horse (bad for the knees), but we do teach that stances should be at butt at knee level (not lower unless its the low reverse bow stance).

Lo Han Chien is part of the forms that Alex H. performed on the "Fight Science" video. (He is NOT SD by the way). It doesn't appear to me to be the same and the traditional shaolin Lo Han sets that I've seen referenced here. It has more more of a mantis/monkey footwork to it (at leaset it should if done correctly). This form emphasizes shrinking and exanding in the application and moving through the target. Lo Han Chien, however, is such a generic term and (with the exception of Alex H.) I've never seen anyone outside of SD do a form that looked substantially the same.

[Baqualin]

Power oriented?
What makes you think power has to be stiff? What makes you think soft and fluid means powerless? Those are concepts that are hard to grasp unless you've taught by a traditional Chinese martial arts master.

We are taught fluidity and softness by GMS and upper level masters within the system...you can't generate fai jing by being stiff...these concepts are hard to grasp period...most students in SD only have a few hours a week to practice and we all know this will not turn you into a world champion....most people are not like a few of us on here, they have a life outside of MA it's only a hobby for them & thats all they want, but guess what they pay the bills so we can have a gym to study in & a teacher to teach.


So you agree that SDers aren't CMAers?


Your starting to sound like a politician...didn't see that at all from his statement:confused:

[Baqualin]

Golden Tiger
As to the material itsself. I thought it was funny how while the newer stuff they did was extremely close to what we do, the older things like Tiger-Crane, pang lung pang, tang lang chien, hua chien..etc, weren't even close. They were done ok I guess, but it was not close to the way that Master Sin taught them out, and I learned them when he taught them out. [QUOTE]

I slightly disagree......Chen Tai Chi, Chen Tai Chi fan, Yang Tai Chi Broad Sword and Budda Fist were nothing like what I was taught

I slightly agree...those videos are a cross section of SD in general as GT said, but not the heart of SD...all the tools to become a TCMA's are there in SD, it's just up to the individual to what direction he pursues

[godzillakungfu]

The differences need to be left alone. I will say this most of the East SD is uniform. Not all but many of the people I encountered in the East do things similar.

Due to a myriad of different reasons the West went out of control. Which led to some major shake ups as they(MS & SS) tried (try) to regain control.

Basically, anyone with about 12-15 years (or longer) will look similar to the East.

Also, rank doesn't denote years out west. Not going to rehash the past but, some you older guys know what I'm talking about. One of the above mentioned people in FM's post is a prime example.

[taichi4eva]

Thanks for the info, Judge Pen.

It makes a lot more sense now...

[Baqualin]

Green Cloud
As a traditionalist I'd have to say that these forms are kempo and as kempo does they have borrowed stuff from a lot of styles. For instance the Broad sword play resemled the movements of a machety not a traditional Dan Dao[QUOTE]

Your absolutely correct but that isn't how the form should be performed....once again most of these guys in the vid are not professionals...just everyday people having fun....it's hard to train over a thousand people scattered all over the country with different instructors to look like Jet Li

[Baqualin]

The differences need to be left alone. .

Also, rank doesn't denote years out west. Not going to rehash the past but, some you older guys know what I'm talking about. One of the above mentioned people in FM's post is a prime example.

Practice what you preach...we don't need to open that can of worms;) BQ

[godzillakungfu]

The can of worms was actually opened with the East vs West differences. :)

Hey, didn't say specific names. Just giving an example like everyone else.

[Baqualin]

The can of worms was actually opened with the East vs West differences. :)

Hey, didn't say specific names. Just giving an example like everyone else.

Just joking with you....I not happy with a lot the performances or politics I see in the east including some of my own.:) Most of that is due to the size we've grown...which after 40 years of cranking out MA's it kinda explains everything if you open your eyes:cool:

[Fei jiao]

Your starting to sound like a politician...didn't see that at all from his statement:confused:

That's because you pasted the wrong statement to which I was responding (come on guys!!!)

Judge Pen said : "The Pa Kua form is as real as it gets. It is taught more rigid then CMA people perform it."

To which I said: So you agree that SDers aren't CMAers?

Get it? More rigid than CMA people, implying that SDers aren't CMA people.

[kungfujunky]

That's because you pasted the wrong statement to which I was responding (come on guys!!!)

Judge Pen said : "The Pa Kua form is as real as it gets. It is taught more rigid then CMA people perform it."

To which I said: So you agree that SDers aren't CMAers?

Get it? More rigid than CMA people, implying that SDers aren't CMA people.

that was not implied at all. he was simply saying we are taught it differently than others

reaching a bit on that one werent you?

[Fei jiao]

I think that the forms were CMA and I think that the way they have been taught and passed down through Indonesia and then in America have given them their own unique flavor. Like the difference between Scotch Whisky and Bourbon Whiskey.

Ok, so you agree that the Sd forms aren't Shaolin Kung fu in it's original form. In other words it's modified, like Kuntao (as someone mentioned).

The thing is, Kuntao people don't deny that their stuff isn't chinese. Only influenced by chinese martial arts. So if it took a different flavor through Indonesia and America do we agree that it isn't pure CMA anymore?

(Don't want to sound like a politician, just try to see if I understood you right)

[Fei jiao]

that was not implied at all. he was simply saying we are taught it differently than others

reaching a bit on that one werent you?

I don't believe so. He was talking about the way Pa kua was taught in SD in comparison to CMA people. When you make a comparison between two things, isn't is implying they're different from each other?

[kungfujunky]

well i was taught geometry differently than my son is ...so does that mean it is no longer geometry?

[Fei jiao]

Oh boy! :rolleyes:

So to your son a triangle isn't the same as a triangle to you?

p.s. I understand that you just don't want to understand

[kungfujunky]

no you miss my point as i expected



because something is taught differently it does not make it any less real or authentic

[Judge Pen]

I don't believe so. He was talking about the way Pa kua was taught in SD in comparison to CMA people. When you make a comparison between two things, isn't is implying they're different from each other?

Most of the time I can speak for myself. :eek:

What I meant was that most CMA people the do PaKua are taught the material in a different way than SD. I think the material is the same, but the full understainding isn't always gleaned because the student is lazy. We are taught the form and the principles, but then, soon after we reach the point we can do all the palm changes by memory, we are taught something new. Because of this, most of us only get a rudimentary understanding of Pa Kua. Some really put the effort in interpreting the 64 "principles and get the flow and rhythm that most CMA people associate with Pa Kua. Its a curse of learning too much material that is so diversified: details get lost or glossed over. So that is a difference in SD and someone who teaches PaKua primarily. They narrow their focus when SD broadens it.

"Ok, so you agree that the Sd forms aren't Shaolin Kung fu in it's original form. In other words it's modified, like Kuntao (as someone mentioned). "

Sure, it has evolved into something different. I doubt ANYONE knows what shaolin kung fu looks like in its original form. Do this for me: Take your favorite form, the one you know by heart and can perform in your sleep. Tape yourself doing that form. Now hide the tape, but continue to do the form every day for the next 25 years. Then tape yourself again. I'll bet dollars to donuts that there will be noticeable difference in the form (and I'm not talking about any deteriorated physical ability). This phenomenon only gets amplified when the forms are then passed on to students who cloud the forms transmission with their own perceptions and body mechanics.

"The thing is, Kuntao people don't deny that their stuff isn't Chinese. Only influenced by Chinese martial arts. So if it took a different flavor through Indonesia and America do we agree that it isn't pure CMA anymore?"

Kung Tao is simply saying kung fu in Indonesian. Many Kung Tao places claim dubious lineages and claim to teach a diversity of material including tai chi, hsing i and Pa Kua. Many kung tao schools say they are doing pure kung fu. I disagree with your assumption that they don't deny their stuff isn't Chinese.

[Fei jiao]

What I meant was that most CMA people the do PaKua are taught the material in a different way than SD. I think the material is the same, but the full understainding isn't always gleaned because the student is lazy. We are taught the form and the principles, but then, soon after we reach the point we can do all the palm changes by memory, we are taught something new. Because of this, most of us only get a rudimentary understanding of Pa Kua. Some really put the effort in interpreting the 64 "principles and get the flow and rhythm that most CMA people associate with Pa Kua. Its a curse of learning too much material that is so diversified: details get lost or glossed over. So that is a difference in SD and someone who teaches PaKua primarily. They narrow their focus when SD broadens it.

"Ok, so you agree that the Sd forms aren't Shaolin Kung fu in it's original form. In other words it's modified, like Kuntao (as someone mentioned). "

Sure, it has evolved into something different. I doubt ANYONE knows what shaolin kung fu looks like in its original form. Do this for me: Take your favorite form, the one you know by heart and can perform in your sleep. Tape yourself doing that form. Now hide the tape, but continue to do the form every day for the next 25 years. Then tape yourself again. I'll bet dollars to donuts that there will be noticeable difference in the form (and I'm not talking about any deteriorated physical ability). This phenomenon only gets amplified when the forms are then passed on to students who cloud the forms transmission with their own perceptions and body mechanics.



Point taken. I agree that learning too much material is counterproductive.



"The thing is, Kuntao people don't deny that their stuff isn't Chinese. Only influenced by Chinese martial arts. So if it took a different flavor through Indonesia and America do we agree that it isn't pure CMA anymore?"

Kung Tao is simply saying kung fu in Indonesian. Many Kung Tao places claim dubious lineages and claim to teach a diversity of material including tai chi, hsing i and Pa Kua. Many kung tao schools say they are doing pure kung fu. I disagree with your assumption that they don't deny their stuff isn't Chinese.

I was reffering to the DeThouars family. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for other schools.

[tattooedmonk]

Over three thousand posts and where are we... exactly where we began. The dead horse is barely recognizable anymore :D I think if you had to post a clip of yourself before criticizing others this puppy wouldn't have made it past 20....that has been turned into glue which has stuck us all together....

[tattooedmonk]

Since when does poor form determine authenticity? My stances are deplorable. My body mechanics are flawed. Does this make the Xing Yi I practice not a TCMA? I use Xing Yi because it is one thing that some SD practitioners have been complimented on. Also, it seems that whenever evidence is presented that SD is CMA, ie; the videos that have been posted recently, it is dismissed as poorly performed wushu, or chalked up to coincidence. It seems there is nothing that will appease either side of this debate. Perhaps KC and friends can help.but these are the things that make it not kung fu

[Radhnoti]

For Fei jiao, from a deThouars website:
"Kun Tao, also spelled "kuntao" or "kuntaw," has best been described as "old Gongfu." It is an archaic form of Chinese martial arts that has largely remained untouched with the passage of time – practiced within the isolated Chinese ethnic enclaves of Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. The fundamental roots of Kun Tao may be found in the Chinese internal martial arts of Hsing le, Taiji, and Pa Kua."
Here's the link:
http://www.mindspring.com/~achentaiji/kun%20tao.htm

[Baqualin]

Most of the time I can speak for myself. :eek:

What I meant was that most CMA people the do PaKua are taught the material in a different way than SD. I think the material is the same, but the full understainding isn't always gleaned because the student is lazy. We are taught the form and the principles, but then, soon after we reach the point we can do all the palm changes by memory, we are taught something new. Because of this, most of us only get a rudimentary understanding of Pa Kua. Some really put the effort in interpreting the 64 "principles and get the flow and rhythm that most CMA people associate with Pa Kua. Its a curse of learning too much material that is so diversified: details get lost or glossed over. So that is a difference in SD and someone who teaches PaKua primarily. They narrow their focus when SD broadens it.

"Ok, so you agree that the Sd forms aren't Shaolin Kung fu in it's original form. In other words it's modified, like Kuntao (as someone mentioned). "

Sure, it has evolved into something different. I doubt ANYONE knows what shaolin kung fu looks like in its original form. Do this for me: Take your favorite form, the one you know by heart and can perform in your sleep. Tape yourself doing that form. Now hide the tape, but continue to do the form every day for the next 25 years. Then tape yourself again. I'll bet dollars to donuts that there will be noticeable difference in the form (and I'm not talking about any deteriorated physical ability). This phenomenon only gets amplified when the forms are then passed on to students who cloud the forms transmission with their own perceptions and body mechanics.

"The thing is, Kuntao people don't deny that their stuff isn't Chinese. Only influenced by Chinese martial arts. So if it took a different flavor through Indonesia and America do we agree that it isn't pure CMA anymore?"

Kung Tao is simply saying kung fu in Indonesian. Many Kung Tao places claim dubious lineages and claim to teach a diversity of material including tai chi, hsing i and Pa Kua. Many kung tao schools say they are doing pure kung fu. I disagree with your assumption that they don't deny their stuff isn't Chinese.

Sorry JP I couldn't resist....I'll try not to do it again:rolleyes:

[Flying-Monkey]

FM, I specifically liked the chain whip videos that were at the CSC site. Could you comment on those please. And understand that the Chinese Shaolin Center, the SDA, and my teacher's group all learned from the same place, but there's often large differences on how each group may be taught or the material might be performed. So there's always a bit of politics involved in commenting on forms from another school. There was A LOT about those videos that I didn't like either and agree with the points you and the Xia made. There were some pretty good forms there too.

For the record, I didn't recognize the Tiger-Crane form either. After I noticed the name of the form I had to re-watch it twice to figure out what part of the form he was doing, and this is one of my favorite forms. Go figure.

I agree that the chain whip is one of the better forms on that video. I have seen just about all of those techniques elsewhere. However, he should sharpen up that form.

[Fei jiao]

For Fei jiao, from a deThouars website:
"Kun Tao, also spelled "kuntao" or "kuntaw," has best been described as "old Gongfu." It is an archaic form of Chinese martial arts that has largely remained untouched with the passage of time – practiced within the isolated Chinese ethnic enclaves of Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. The fundamental roots of Kun Tao may be found in the Chinese internal martial arts of Hsing le, Taiji, and Pa Kua."
Here's the link:
http://www.mindspring.com/~achentaiji/kun%20tao.htm

Thank you for pointing that out to me. However, read a little further down:
"Kun Tao / Silat de Thouars is the martial art system created by Willem de Thouars, after a lifetime of study of Chinese and Indonesian fighting styles. In over fifty years of practice "Uncle Bill" has carefully studied a dozen forms of Chinese Kun Tao and some fifteen styles of Indonesian Silat, as well as, numerous other martial and combative arts to synthesize his own unique blend."

So if I read correctly he admits modifying and mixing Chinese and Indonesian arts together. Actually I had formerly heard it from one of Willem de Thouars student. At least they don't go around saying "We are the real original Chinese kung fu".

If Shaolin-Do is a modified version of Chinese martial arts, blended with Indonesian or Japanese influence (and there's nothing wrong with that), why do they claim to be the original Shaolin? If they were honest about where it comes from I'm sure they wouldn't get the criticism they get.

[Radhnoti]

Yes, HIS style is a blend. But I'd argue that the top of the page is their definition of a component of their style, kuntao. Notice they define silat as well. This is certainly not the only school with a "kuntao" background, and I've read the same sentiment elsewhere.
"Old kungfu", "largely untouched"...common statements in kuntao circles. They feel their relative isolation in "Chinese enclaves" led to a (more) pure transmission of information.
At least that's what I've been able to scout out...

[Invincible Yang]

The following is taken from the book Shantung Black Tiger:"Another term that describes chinese hand-to-hand systems is the word kun-tao. This word belongs to the Hokkien dialect. It is a generic term that, like wu-shu, encompasses the study and practice of both empty-hand and weapon tactics, but expresses little of the martial spirit behind them. The ideogram for kun means fist, and that for tao means head; thus kun-tao means "the head of the fist." This definition, however, does not indicate the broad scope of kun-tao methods." "Nevertheless, the term is a popular one, being in common use among the hundreds of millions of chinese and malay people of southeast asia. In fact, in southeast asia, the expression kun-tao is more commonly used than wu-shu, ch'uan-shu, or chuan-fa, which are the terms preferred by the people of northern china."
I thought this might clear up what Kun-tao is.

[Judge Pen]

I agree that the chain whip is one of the better forms on that video. I have seen just about all of those techniques elsewhere. However, he should sharpen up that form.

We can all sharpen up our forms. And isn't having seen those techniques elsewhere indicitive of the fact that they are commonly accepted CMA techniques? At least its not something crazy and made up.

[kwaichang]

Have any of you guys ever heard of Pankration ? KC

[BentMonk]

Have any of you guys ever heard of Pankration ? KC

I've seen several matches. It's been around a lot longer than MMA. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Rikson Gracie using the "ground & pound" very effectively in more than a few matches. The gear the fighters wear reminds me of the gear that Bruce and Samo wore at the beginning of Enter The Dragon.

[KungFu Student]

Hello all, first time poster here. I have read this thread with interest as of late. I will start out by stating that I take Shaolin-Do at this time. What I find intersting in this thread is the whole "is it TCMA"? And many have issues about the lineage. When I was deciding about which school to attend, I went to several in my area to check them out. I decided on SD for a variety of reasons, the instructor, the atmosphere, and the dedication everyone there had to the art. I did not join because I wanted a history lesson, and quite frankly I could care less. What matters to me most is the results. In my humble opinion, there is no TCMA anymore. I believe this because when many of the traditional instructors left China and came to Europe and the U.S., the art they taught changed, due to the fact they were teaching it to Europeans who had a different outlook on life. Does that mean that the MA that Europeans do is invalid because they do it differently then those from the East? Absolutely not. It just means that the style has evolved.
The lineage of SD is always questioned. Do I believe in it? Not really. Does that make me not a good student? I don't believe so. There are many students that take their training seriously, and I believe are equal to any other practioner of an art. But like any MA, it is all what you put into it.
It seems to me that since many doubt the lineage of SD, and if it is TCMA or not, that they want to write it off as not being good. Just because a style is "traditional" will not give you the ability to make someone's head explode, or turn their bones to jelly. It is a method, like anything else. I am sure that Bruce Lee went through the same issue when he was forming JKD.
I have always believed in giving someone respect if they are a martial artist, no matter what style they have choosen. In my eyes, they have made a choice to work hard at something that most people do not have the discipline to pursue, to challenge themselves to push the boundries of what they think they can do. To call into question the practice of SD because there are those who question it's lineage, or the few video's presentations that have been posted on the forum can be taken as insulting to those that have choosen it as their art and work hard to be the best they can be. I am not saying that we don't have bad practioners, any style does, but we have many good ones as well. We should not be judged on the small amount of students or masters shown on the net, but on the quality of all the students as a whole.

[Judge Pen]

Just because a style is "traditional" will not give you the ability to make someone's head explode, or turn their bones to jelly.

That made me laugh.

Great post. Any school would be proud to have a student with an outlook like you in their midst.

[Baqualin]

Hello all, first time poster here. I have read this thread with interest as of late. I will start out by stating that I take Shaolin-Do at this time. What I find intersting in this thread is the whole "is it TCMA"? And many have issues about the lineage. When I was deciding about which school to attend, I went to several in my area to check them out. I decided on SD for a variety of reasons, the instructor, the atmosphere, and the dedication everyone there had to the art. I did not join because I wanted a history lesson, and quite frankly I could care less. What matters to me most is the results. In my humble opinion, there is no TCMA anymore. I believe this because when many of the traditional instructors left China and came to Europe and the U.S., the art they taught changed, due to the fact they were teaching it to Europeans who had a different outlook on life. Does that mean that the MA that Europeans do is invalid because they do it differently then those from the East? Absolutely not. It just means that the style has evolved.
The lineage of SD is always questioned. Do I believe in it? Not really. Does that make me not a good student? I don't believe so. There are many students that take their training seriously, and I believe are equal to any other practioner of an art. But like any MA, it is all what you put into it.
It seems to me that since many doubt the lineage of SD, and if it is TCMA or not, that they want to write it off as not being good. Just because a style is "traditional" will not give you the ability to make someone's head explode, or turn their bones to jelly. It is a method, like anything else. I am sure that Bruce Lee went through the same issue when he was forming JKD.
I have always believed in giving someone respect if they are a martial artist, no matter what style they have choosen. In my eyes, they have made a choice to work hard at something that most people do not have the discipline to pursue, to challenge themselves to push the boundries of what they think they can do. To call into question the practice of SD because there are those who question it's lineage, or the few video's presentations that have been posted on the forum can be taken as insulting to those that have choosen it as their art and work hard to be the best they can be. I am not saying that we don't have bad practioners, any style does, but we have many good ones as well. We should not be judged on the small amount of students or masters shown on the net, but on the quality of all the students as a whole.

Welcome to the Machine:D

[Flying-Monkey]

I am retiring from this thread. I spoke with my Sifu. He said "If they are not saying what they do is TSPK, then don't worry about them."

I don't care one way or the other at this point.

[Radhnoti]

To me, kuntao, kung-fu, karate, wushu, tae kwon do, etc. are all just...popular boxes to fit something into. It's sort of meaningless unless you know something about the GENERAL points associated with each, and no style always fits perfectly into one box.
Karate, most would say is linear and focused on aggressive external technique.
Kung-fu often works with less direct and flowing motions.
Wushu (in the U.S.) typically refers to kungfu based performance art. Beautiful to watch and highly athletic.
Kuntao is Chinese kungfu based but with Indonesian sensibilities, usually a focus on sparring and functionality. Often in kuntao more is better...more forms, more technique, etc...and they don't care to add things that work from other sources.

These are all just categories...little boxes we put things into to help us with our personal understanding of what things ARE without direct experience. It makes sense, to me, to classify shaolin-do as kuntao because of it's many similarities to OTHER kuntao schools. If kung-fu stylists come to understand that many of the attitudes and claims made by shaolin-do are echoed and repeated in other styles from the Indo-Chinese area...maybe that's the bridge to understanding. Shaolin-do is unique, but not so unique as to be outside the "box" of kuntao, in my opinion.

[Baqualin]

I am retiring from this thread. I spoke with my Sifu. He said "If they are not saying what they do is TSPK, then don't worry about them."

I don't care one way or the other at this point.

Your Sifu is correct...we only do SD and like any organization our size, there will be alot of bad Kung Fu shown along with the good...it all depends on the person...I had eventually hoped to show you some of our better people perform...I really appreciated the TSPK videos posted on the other thread by some of your friends.....we do know what real kung fu is when we see it just like you...that should tell you something. I also don't think we're worth losing any sleep over....we don't give flack...we only catch it;)

I for one hate to see you leave....you bring alot of knowledge to the table and I really enjoy your debates.....stop by once in awhile and say Hi:)

[KungFu Student]

That made me laugh.

Great post. Any school would be proud to have a student with an outlook like you in their midst.

Thank you for your kind words, You humble me. I do not believe that traditional styles are any less effective, far from it. But I think that many people believe just because a certain style is supposedly "traditional" that it is inherently better. I personally do not believe this. Which style is better lies mainly on the skill of the people squaring off against each other. This is my opinion of course, your mileage may vary.

[BentMonk]

Kung Fu Student - Awesome post. Welcome to the thread. With your attitude I am sure you will become an excellent martial artist.

[Green Cloud]

Have any of you guys ever heard of Pankration ? KC

Panckration is an ancient Greek MA system historicaly it was credited with the development of Greco Roman wrestling.

[greencloudtj]

does that anchent greek style consist of doggy style...i mean it is greek right

[The Willow Sword]

Quoted By Kungfu Student

The lineage of SD is always questioned. Do I believe in it? Not really.

Then Why be a part of something that misrepresents themselves and allegedly fabricates its "authenticity"? why would anyone want to be a part of that?

See that is the problem. no-one cares anymore about keeping the history alive and clean and legitamate. No-one cares about integrity and honor anymore.

TWS

[KungFu Student]

Because I do not need history to make myself a better martial artist. That just takes hard work.

[Green Cloud]

does that anchent greek style consist of doggy style...i mean it is greek right

Actualy TJ yes youre right the style resembled Brazilian Jiu Jit su,, gay but effective and after the Greek empire it was perfected by the Romans. You know your Italian ancestors;)

[The Xia]

http://historical-pankration.com/
According to this website, pankration was added to the 33rd Olympiad in 648 BC. It states that it was practiced by the Greeks then the Romans. It would make sense being that the Romans borrowed much from the Greeks. However, there is still the mystery of who the Romans are. Some theorize the Trojans were the ancestors to the Romans. Notable pre-Roman civilization in Italy is Greek civilization. Southern Italy was known as Magna Graecia. There also existed the Etruscan civilization centered in Tuscany, which created the forerunner of the gladiatorial games.

[Green Cloud]

That's a great web site Xia, It seems that Pankration was a complete MA systems.

I'm astounded by how much evidence that is unearthed to support the claims about one of the oldest fighting styles to date.

I feel this is a good topic since the history of Pankrates can be supported from the pictures found from these artifacts.

In relation to SD the only evidence they have to support their claims is Mythology. At least the Greeks were able to differentiate Mythology from History and as ancient as this civilization is they have a ton of evidence to support all their historical data.

[tattooedmonk]

Quoted By Kungfu Student



Then Why be a part of something that misrepresents themselves and allegedly fabricates its "authenticity"? why would anyone want to be a part of that?

See that is the problem. no-one cares anymore about keeping the history alive and clean and legitamate. No-one cares about integrity and honor anymore.

TWSquit your crying...do you want some cheese for that whine??

[godzillakungfu]

Then Why be a part of something that misrepresents themselves and allegedly fabricates its "authenticity"? why would anyone want to be a part of that?

You know TWS, if you kept your emotions out, you make valid points. Then you say the above and lose credibility. Up until your falling out you felt exactly like KFS. Yes, I lurked for a long time. A very long time and I know what happened with your drama.

Of course only by what was written.

[MasterKiller]

So did KC ever get that translation of Sin's certificate yet?

[BentMonk]

The more I think about it, the more likely it seems that SD's history may be true, despite what so many think. If someone were going to use Shaolin kung fu as a money making enterprise, but didn't want to spend decades becoming a real Shaolin master, they could do it much easier than the way people seem to believe GM Sin did. Google, photo-shop, and some creative writing that corresponds with established dates and events in accepted TCMA lore, and they would have enough validity to satisfy 90% of the people on this thread, myself included. We may be well read and well practiced, but there is not one true TCMA expert on this thread. All we are doing here is throwing the same conflicting opinions back and forth. It's interesting diversion that will be around as long as someone from both sides keeps typing. GM Sin is passing on the history and material of Shaolin Do as it was passed to him. When he began teaching in America 40 years ago, the history of TCMA was not as readily available or as sought after as it is today. Even if GM Sin had intended to lie from day one, someone of his obvious intelligence could have constructed something more believable than SD's history. GM Sin has no need to lie. Shaolin Do is a Chinese martial art with roots in the Fukien temple that evolved and traveled through Indonesia and America to become what it is today. I have gotten nothing but positive things from my Shaolin Do training. Many others have as well. :D

[KungFu Student]

You know TWS, if you kept your emotions out, you make valid points. Then you say the above and lose credibility. Up until your falling out you felt exactly like KFS. Yes, I lurked for a long time. A very long time and I know what happened with your drama.

Of course only by what was written.

TWS is entitled to his opinion. The history and lineage of a style are important to him, and there is nothing wrong with that. I personally don't place that much importance on it, but rather on if I like the style, and if it has something to offer me. In my time with SD, it has helped me to achieve the goals I have set out for my self when I first began looking at taking MA. I have lost weight, became stronger, it has challenged me, and I believe has made me a better person. All this without delving into it's history. Again, this is how I am, not trying to insult anyone, but just giving my point of view.

[Citong Shifu]

The more I think about it, the more likely it seems that SD's history may be true, despite what so many think. If someone were going to use Shaolin kung fu as a money making enterprise, but didn't want to spend decades becoming a real Shaolin master, they could do it much easier than the way people seem to believe GM Sin did. Google, photo-shop, and some creative writing that corresponds with established dates and events in accepted TCMA lore, and they would have enough validity to satisfy 90% of the people on this thread, myself included. We may be well read and well practiced, but there is not one true TCMA expert on this thread. All we are doing here is throwing the same conflicting opinions back and forth. It's interesting diversion that will be around as long as someone from both sides keeps typing. GM Sin is passing on the history and material of Shaolin Do as it was passed to him. When he began teaching in America 40 years ago, the history of TCMA was not as readily available or as sought after as it is today. Even if GM Sin had intended to lie from day one, someone of his obvious intelligence could have constructed something more believable than SD's history. GM Sin has no need to lie. Shaolin Do is a Chinese martial art with roots in the Fukien temple that evolved and traveled through Indonesia and America to become what it is today. I have gotten nothing but positive things from my Shaolin Do training. Many others have as well. :D


What maks you think there's "NO" TCMA expert on this thread? I can honestly tell you this, Shaolin-Do itself (name) is not CMA. Shaolin-Do has many forms/tao lu's that are rooted from the Fujian/Fukien Shaolin Temple, this is true, but if you really research the names or translations of your tao lu you will find out that the forms originated during the period when the Okinawan masters trained at Fujian Temple, thus creating the first forms of karate... When the forms made there way back to Okinawa, they were modified once again into modern day Okinawan karate-do....

Now, I'm not saying Shaolin-Do is Okinawan karate, but the translations of Shaolin-Do bird forms, etc evolved when Fujian Shaolin Kungfu was modified by the karate masters....

Please, dont take my word for it, ask you master The', he should know exactly what I'm talking about.... I'm not interested in a big debate on this issue, I could care less. Anyone can research what I've just spoken about, it's no secret..

Me, I'm just interested in my training/art, but I do get somewhat aggitated when people presume there's no TCMA experts on board here... As you guys in Shaolin-Do, I train very hard 7 days a week, nothing part-time. I take my efforts in the CMA very serious... I choose not to say things on this thread due to the relevance of this thread.... Shaolin-Do is a real martial arts, rather its TCMA, who really cares... Marketing and advertising, so what....

The actual question was "Is Shaolin-Do for real", YES... Anything else is a whole entire seperate coversation....

I hope I didnt offend you guys in Shaolin-Do, I wasn't trying to... Your GM The' should be able to answer your questions on my statements....

CS.
Shifu Ron...

[KungFu Student]

What maks you think there's "NO" TCMA expert on this thread? I can honestly tell you this, Shaolin-Do itself (name) is not CMA. Shaolin-Do has many forms/tao lu's that are rooted from the Fujian/Fukien Shaolin Temple, this is true, but if you really research the names or translations of your tao lu you will find out that the forms originated during the period when the Okinawan masters trained at Fujian Temple, thus creating the first forms of karate... When the forms made there way back to Okinawa, they were modified once again into modern day Okinawan karate-do....

Now, I'm not saying Shaolin-Do is Okinawan karate, but the translations of Shaolin-Do bird forms, etc evolved when Fujian Shaolin Kungfu was modified by the karate masters....

Please, dont take my word for it, ask you master The', he should know exactly what I'm talking about.... I'm not interested in a big debate on this issue, I could care less. Anyone can research what I've just spoken about, it's no secret..

Me, I'm just interested in my training/art, but I do get somewhat aggitated when people presume there's no TCMA experts on board here... As you guys in Shaolin-Do, I train very hard 7 days a week, nothing part-time. I take my efforts in the CMA very serious... I choose not to say things on this thread due to the relevance of this thread.... Shaolin-Do is a real martial arts, rather its TCMA, who really cares... Marketing and advertising, so what....

The actual question was "Is Shaolin-Do for real", YES... Anything else is a whole entire coversation....

I hope I didnt offend you guys with Shaolin-Do, I wasn't trying to... Your GM The' should be able to answer your questions on my statements....

CS.
Shifu Ron...

No offence taken here. :) I have no doubt that there are many on the board who have extensive knowledge in TCMA. This is what I was trying to get across, SD is a martial art, traditional or not.

[Radhnoti]

GC - "I'm astounded by how much evidence that is unearthed to support the claims about one of the oldest fighting styles to date...In relation to SD the only evidence they have to support their claims is Mythology."

I was under the impression that the original "Pankration" was lost and it's been reconstructed by modern groups.

A martial art...the original form no longer REALLY taught...just various groups and their interpretations. Hey! You're right, it does have something to do with shaolin/shaolin-do. :D

[BentMonk]

CS - No offense taken. I was also not trying to offend by saying there were no experts on this thread. Your posts have been polite and intelligent. I respect your knowledge. I honestly did not think that anyone who considered themselves a TCMA expert would have the time or inclination to participate in this discussion. Apparently I was mistaken. I was not directing my comment toward any specific person. In your opinion, what qualifies someone as an expert in TCMA? I'm not being sarcastic. I'm just curious.

[The Willow Sword]

quit your crying...do you want some cheese for that whine??

TTM, seems like you need a bigger spoon for the BS you eat everyday:rolleyes:




You know TWS, if you kept your emotions out, you make valid points. Then you say the above and lose credibility.

Well we are an emotional species godzillakungfu. I am certainly no robot, nor are the rest of us, and I dont think i have gained or lost any more credability here than the next person,but that is just how i feel about it.

anyway as for KF Student's comments, LIke JP he makes decent comments and even though i disagree with the not caring about the history part, i respect his choice to do what it is he feels he must in order to better himself.
It will be a while before i come back to this thread, My life is about to get very busy and very serious for the next several months and i wont have time to post anything else. Im sure some will be very happy not to have my "input" no matter how IN/ VALID or EMOTIONAL it may be, here in this thread.

But take care all and do what you feel is right in your heart, as i often do, regardless of the consequences.

Take Care All, Peace, TWS:cool:

[Citong Shifu]

CS - No offense taken. I was also not trying to offend by saying there were no experts on this thread. Your posts have been polite and intelligent. I respect your knowledge. I honestly did not think that anyone who considered themselves a TCMA expert would have the time or inclination to participate in this discussion. Apparently I was mistaken. I was not directing my comment toward any specific person. In your opinion, what qualifies someone as an expert in TCMA? I'm not being sarcastic. I'm just curious.

Bent Monk, I usually dont participate in this discussion. However, I do follow the debate and from time to time add a comment or two :D . As far as, what qualifies someone as an expert in TCMA, well, I guess that would depend on each persons definition or belief... I personally believe that such a person would be trained extensively in TCMA; tradition, culture, history, theory, principles, etc. Every aspect of traditional training will be learned and perfected (according to art/style). Standards of TCMA are upheld; flexibility, speed, power, stance, stability, posture, applications, etc regardless of age or disability. I know this seems somewhat harsh, but remember, CMA in the old days were only passed to those who were stong enough to complete their training... Anywho, this subject could be talked or debated for months, so lets stop here... The few examples I listed above pretty much covered the question asked, one would just need to sort out which definition goes with which example :D . You know, I understand that the CMA have been so commercialized that its really hard to find experts in TCMA, and its true. Money has come before quality. What a shame... Ok, no soap box ranting.. Talk to you guys later...

CS
Shifu Ron..

[Citong Shifu]

I guess this would be a good time to invite all of you to the MidWest Chinese Martial arts Society (http://groups.msn.com/mid-westchinesemartialartssociety). It's a MSN group site that talks about all different styles of CMA.. If there's not a board for your particular art, one can be added... The group site is not for arguing are things of that nature, but a place to share and debate... Anywho, if interested, come on by and say hello..

CS.

[BentMonk]

CS - You are truly from the "old school". I thank you for your invitation. I will visit soon.

[Golden Tiger]

So did KC ever get that translation of Sin's certificate yet?

I posted a translation of it MK, don't you trust me?:confused:


http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=709720&postcount=3401

[Citong Shifu]

CS - You are truly from the "old school". I thank you for your invitation. I will visit soon.

Bent Monk, Thank you! But, it is I that should commend you on your perseverance and efforts within the martial arts. I just viewed your website, wow! Talk about inspiration... You know, I see martial artist everyday that have nothing holding them back but themselves and laziness, then there's martial artist such as yourself that take full advantage of the benefits that the arts have to offer... Once again, great job!

CS.

[Green Cloud]

Just curious, what does Citon Sifu mean ?? I mean the name not his comments.

[The Xia]

It's a city in China's Fujian province.

[MasterKiller]

I posted a translation of it MK, don't you trust me?:confused:


http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=709720&postcount=3401

I must have missed that. This thread moves pretty fast.

[Citong Shifu]

Just curious, what does Citon Sifu mean ?? I mean the name not his comments.


yes, Citong is the ancient name for the city of Quanzhou (Fujian Prov.) Citong is my sifu's hometown, as with his sifus', except for Wan Laishen. Also, Citong (Quanzhou) was the original location of the Fujian/fukien Shaolin Temple. We use the name Citong to indicate origin of our style/art. Our tradition is Fujian Shaolin Temple Boxing; Shaolin Quan, Louhan Quan, & Di Shu Quan. We also specialize in Chang Quan, Tong Bei Quan, Ziranmen, Lui He Tang Long Quan, & the Internal arts...

I know there is alot of speculation (PRC) as to where the Fujian or Shaolin Temple was first erected, but through our documentation and my sifu's manuals it was Citong/Quanzhou not Putain, which the PRC claims...

Talk to you guys later.
CS (Citong Shaolin Kung Fu Academy)

[BentMonk]

Bent Monk, Thank you! But, it is I that should commend you on your perseverance and efforts within the martial arts. I just viewed your website, wow! Talk about inspiration... You know, I see martial artist everyday that have nothing holding them back but themselves and laziness, then there's martial artist such as yourself that take full advantage of the benefits that the arts have to offer... Once again, great job!

CS.

Thank you for the kind words. I am just trying to use my love of MA and the benefits that training brought me to help others. I was very fortunate to have found my instructors. Their dedication to their own training, and their knowledge enabled them to realistically adapt forms and techniques to suit my needs. I am indebted to them, and the MDs, PTs, OTs, RNs, and many others who help ensure that studying the arts does nothing but help those I train.

[greencloudtj]

Actualy TJ yes youre right the style resembled Brazilian Jiu Jit su,, gay but effective and after the Greek empire it was perfected by the Romans. You know your Italian ancestors;)



well you no the romans are very romantic....:eek:

[kwaichang]

The company refused to translate the document , no reason given. KC

[tattooedmonk]

..to all the people that doubt that SD is a tradtional art , CMA , or Shaolin ......what makes you think this way??

Going by the definition of what tradition is,( latin word traditio meaning "to hand over" or "pass down"),it is obvious SD has traditions which come from many sources they just are not the ones most commonly followed .

Hell most of the traditions that are in modern schools are adaptations from the original ones.

At least we are not wearing monk robes and shaving are heads ( pretending to me monks) or wearing some queer colored trimmed silk which will get torn and ripped from your body the first time someone gets ahold of it!!!

The forms are Chinese in origin ...this seems obvious...how they are performed in demonstrations does not make them any less effective as a martial art or anyless CMA.

for all of you that think CMA is suppose to be pretty ...get a clue... I know plenty of people who have great form but cannot fight their way out of a paper bag ...which is more useful whehter it is effective or pretty???..if it works in a fight then it is a martial art if it does not, but looks pretty, it is dancing.

Many Styles / systems/ forms have been absorbed into Shaolin and many other non Shaolin schools over the centuries .....so why should SD be any different? Just because Hung gar has absorbed Lau gar forms into their curiculum does it make it any less Hung Gar or any less Shaolin??

...so if you all think that just because the outward appearences, different traditions, and styles/ systems make SD not traditional , not CMA , and not Shaolin then you have a lot to learn and need to be more openminded ....

[Citong Shifu]

..to all the people that doubt that SD is a tradtional art , CMA , or Shaolin ......what makes you think this way??

Going by the definition of what tradition is,( latin word traditio meaning "to hand over" or "pass down"),it is obvious SD has traditions which come from many sources they just are not the ones most commonly followed .

Hell most of the traditions that are in modern schools are adaptations from the original ones.

At least we are not wearing monk robes and shaving are heads ( pretending to me monks) or wearing some queer colored trimmed silk which will get torn and ripped from your body the first time someone gets ahold of it!!!

The forms are Chinese in origin ...this seems obvious...how they are performed in demonstrations does not make them any less effective as a martial art or anyless CMA.

for all of you that think CMA is suppose to be pretty ...get a clue... I know plenty of people who have great form but cannot fight their way out of a paper bag ...which is more useful whehter it is effective or pretty???..if it works in a fight then it is a martial art if it does not, but looks pretty, it is dancing.

Many Styles / systems/ forms have been absorbed into Shaolin and many other non Shaolin schools over the centuries .....so why should SD be any different? Just because Hung gar has absorbed Lau gar forms into their curiculum does it make it any less Hung Gar or any less Shaolin??

...so if you all think that just because the outward appearences, different traditions, and styles/ systems make SD not traditional , not CMA , and not Shaolin then you have a lot to learn and need to be more openminded ....


I just wanted to comment on your statement about pretty forms but cannot fight. - There are people in the martial arts who do not wish to learn the fighting aspects or I should say, study comprehensively the fighting applications of their art. They merely use the arts as a means to stay fit and healthy, while maintaining their athletic abilities for personal or performance interests.... Then you have those who dive deep into the arts and there fighting application. These individuals not only perfect their art (look pretty), but can fight very good as well... I dont think they really care about someone tearing their silk uniform while their whooping someone's @ss, IMHO :D . On the flip side, I;ve seen others who cant perform their art to any CMA standard, but can open a can of whoop @ss on someone who looked to be a competant fighter and again, the tearing of cloths isn't a factor..

Now, to comment on the statement - "For those who think the CMA are suppost to look pretty". Well if speed, power, precision, flexibilty, stability, control, execution, release, etc is whats referred to as pretty, then there is misunderstanding to what the actual standards and principles are for the CMA..

"Which is more useful - Effective or Pretty (art)". Who said pretty cant be effective. Remember, one should not judge an art on the outward appearance of an exibitionist; kungfu, wushu, karate, tae kwon do, etc... And, Ive seen it from all arts, but I also seen guys from many arts that would tear someone a new one in the ring, etc, regardless if the appear pretty or not.. Anywho, I really hate using the word pretty, cause it just doesnt denote the efforts of the Martial artist, performer or fighter. Both take a great deal of perfection, time, & commitment...

Anyway, just wanted to say, its not right to compare apples to oranges, given we dont know a person true intent in the MA's; performer, fighter, or "MARTIAL ARTIST".

IMHO.
CS

[tattooedmonk]

I just wanted to comment on your statement about pretty forms but cannot fight. - There are people in the martial arts who do not wish to learn the fighting aspects or I should say, study comprehensively the fighting applications of their art. They merely use the arts as a means to stay fit and healthy, while maintaining their athletic abilities for personal or performance interests.... Then you have those who dive deep into the arts and there fighting application. These individuals not only perfect their art (look pretty), but can fight very good as well... I dont think they really care about someone tearing their silk uniform while their whooping someone's @ss, IMHO :D . On the flip side, I;ve seen others who cant perform their art to any CMA standard, but can open a can of whoop @ss on someone who looked to be a competant fighter and again, the tearing of cloths isn't a factor..

Now, to comment on the statement - "For those who think the CMA are suppost to look pretty". Well if speed, power, precision, flexibilty, stability, control, execution, release, etc is whats referred to as pretty, then there is misunderstanding to what the actual standards and principles are for the CMA..

"Which is more useful - Effective or Pretty (art)". Who said pretty cant be effective. Remember, one should not judge an art on the outward appearance of an exibitionist; kungfu, wushu, karate, tae kwon do, etc... And, Ive seen it from all arts, but I also seen guys from many arts that would tear someone a new one in the ring, etc, regardless if the appear pretty or not.. Anywho, I really hate using the word pretty, cause it just doesnt denote the efforts of the Martial artist, performer or fighter. Both take a great deal of perfection, time, & commitment...

Anyway, just wanted to say, its not right to compare apples to oranges, given we dont know a person true intent in the MA's; performer, fighter, or "MARTIAL ARTIST".

IMHO.
CSI never said that if it was pretty that it could not be effective in fighting....but most of the people that are more concerned about whether it looks pretty or not are performance artist and not martial artists...basically dancers. Nor did I say that if someone made it look pretty they could not use it effectively in a fight( I do both) if you do it for performance or for recreation or a hobbie you are not a martialartist martial artists do it for all the reasons not just the ones they choose.

as for the bit about the uniform how much practical application are you learning if you are wearing these way out costumes during practice...or teeshirts or whatever?? none.

You have not answered the question about what is the definition of what CMA is or is not beyond all the superficial BS.

[ninthdrunk]

TTM, you keep bringing up the same things, man...


"Going by the definition of what tradition is,( latin word traditio meaning "to hand over" or "pass down"),it is obvious SD has traditions which come from many sources they just are not the ones most commonly followed ."

The problem with this line of reasoning is that everything would have to be seen as a traditional art no matter how much it has changed, so long as it had a tradition of passing along information. With that in mind, it seems like even modern sport wushu could be a traditional art, because it clearly has traditions, they're just "not the ones most commonly followed." I guess for lack of a better way of saying it, having "traditions" does not make an art traditional.

I think people on here feel as though in order to be considered a traditional/CMA/shaolin art, it should contain certain recognizable aspects that other traditional/CMA/shaolin arts have. It's like trying to convince someone that a hamster is a dog and saying, "well, dogs have four legs and fur, and this animal clearly has four legs and fur, so it must be a dog." People aren't going to buy that, because they are used to seeing certain defining characteristics in dogs (or traditional/CMA/Shaolin arts) that they don't see in the hamster (or shaolin do).***

Which brings us to:

" The forms are Chinese in origin ...this seems obvious...how they are performed in demonstrations does not make them any less effective as a martial art or anyless CMA."

Clearly it's not so obvious, otherwise the people on here who have been around awhile and who have been exposed to so many CMA would not be confused and raising such a stink about it. Just like you are always demanding evidence from people about why they feel it's NOT a Chinese art, why don't you enlighten them as to why it's so obvious.


And now:

"At least we are not wearing monk robes and shaving are heads ( pretending to me monks) or wearing some queer colored trimmed silk which will get torn and ripped from your body the first time someone gets ahold of it!!!"

Why in the world are you attacking what people wear? It seems like in the same breath you will claim it doesn't matter about outward trappings, and then turn right around and say something like this. Oh, and I didn't know that queers came in a certain color...:rolleyes:


You try to talk all this mess about Shaolin being a philosophy. I sure hope you don't feel as though you're walking that path. Perhaps it's just something in the facelessness of the internet, but you are a very demanding, condescending and overall rude individual. Your ability to lump all questioners and doubters of Shaolin-Do into one group is quite insulting to those on here asking legitimate questions. Grandmaster Sin wants us all to be ambassadors of our art, not attack dogs, trained to snarl and snip at everyone with a difference of opinion. Surely, someone as learned and educated as yourself should be able to have more civil and meaningful conversations.


If no one is answering your questions in the way you want, why don't you tell us what you think, in perfect, unambiguous detail, what CMA is all about, and why Shaolin Do qualifies. Then, others can state their objections and counters...if you haven't been ignored by everyone on here other than myself (...'cause I think you mean well....just a little of the mark).



***I in no way mean to compare Shaolin Do to a hamster in terms of effectiveness in fighting.:o

[MasterKiller]

as for the bit about the uniform how much practical application are you learning if you are wearing these way out costumes during practice...or teeshirts or whatever?? none.

uh...practical application would be to learn to fight in a T-shirt, unless you walk around in your Gi all the time. Guys who do Gi-only training usually get beat up once the Gis come off. Hope you never get into a fight on the beach. :rolleyes:

[Citong Shifu]

I never said that if it was pretty that it could not be effective in fighting....but most of the people that are more concerned about whether it looks pretty or not are performance artist and not martial artists...basically dancers. Nor did I say that if someone made it look pretty they could not use it effectively in a fight( I do both) if you do it for performance or for recreation or a hobbie you are not a martialartist martial artists do it for all the reasons not just the ones they choose.

as for the bit about the uniform how much practical application are you learning if you are wearing these way out costumes during practice...or teeshirts or whatever?? none.

You have not answered the question about what is the definition of what CMA is or is not beyond all the superficial BS.


TTM, I will not argue with you pertaining to my recent post "Pretty or Effective". Your words and statements on this issue says it all... You in fact did insinuate that pretty is not effective and then went to say "which is more useful - pretty or effective"... Anyway, thats not the point. The point is, art (pretty) = efficeincy, efficeincy = effectiveness (as to the martial artist not performer). I was just commenting on outward comparrisons between martial artist and performers, who really knows what the intent of the person being compared????? Of course, unless you know the individual in question...

As far as, the cloths issue... Who really cares about cloths... Not a martial artist! Applications concerning cloths, who cares. If you cant execute your skills on someone wearing a jacket, t-shirt, uniform, tank top, bare skin, etc, than somethings wrong with that aspect of training... Aplications huh, what would you do against someone with no shirt on or a flimsy top, lol. At the most nothing or you might tear the top off :rolleyes: . People who wear jackets, sweat shirts, hoodies, etc, lol, that type of clothing is easy to grab and assist with throws and chokes.... BUT, if you have to train with a certain type of clothing to make your techniques work, well then, good luck... The clothing issue has no real relavence, other than common knowledge...

The question on "What defines CMA or TCMA, I already gave my opinion on this subject on an earlier post...

CS...

[Green Cloud]

GC - "I'm astounded by how much evidence that is unearthed to support the claims about one of the oldest fighting styles to date...In relation to SD the only evidence they have to support their claims is Mythology."

I was under the impression that the original "Pankration" was lost and it's been reconstructed by modern groups.

A martial art...the original form no longer REALLY taught...just various groups and their interpretations. Hey! You're right, it does have something to do with shaolin/shaolin-do. :D

http://historical-pankration.com/

What are you a car sales man??:rolleyes: Read what I wrote since you took the time to type it out.

"I am astounded by how much evidence that is unearthed to support the claims" in Pancration. Even though Pancration is several thousands of years old the historical evidence is in tact. Just go on the site and look for your self :cool:

In regard to SD you guys have no evidece to support any of the historical claims SD people make it's closer to Mythology.

As far as Pankration being reconstructed it was based on detailed manuals and art work that very clearly show Pancration fighting skills. Not to mention that Olympic style wrestling is Pancration with rules if you don't believe me just book a ticket to Athens and vist Acropolis and you can see it for your self.

Ok boys and girls lets look up what EVIDENCE means,,, That wich serves to prove or disprove something; support proof.

[tattooedmonk]

uh...practical application would be to learn to fight in a T-shirt, unless you walk around in your Gi all the time. Guys who do Gi-only training usually get beat up once the Gis come off. Hope you never get into a fight on the beach. :rolleyes:..... a gi is useful for continued practice of practical application without having to buy new t shirts or whatever else on a daily basis ..... it is strong, durable ,and can withstand continued punishment other types can not....

of course this only applys to when you have cloths on..do not be stupid...you knew what I meant. But of course you think inside the box and have very narrow views on everything.....

[tattooedmonk]

TTM, I will not argue with you pertaining to my recent post "Pretty or Effective". Your words and statements on this issue says it all... You in fact did insinuate that pretty is not effective and then went to say "which is more useful - pretty or effective"... Anyway, thats not the point. The point is, art (pretty) = efficeincy, efficeincy = effectiveness (as to the martial artist not performer). I was just commenting on outward comparrisons between martial artist and performers, who really knows what the intent of the person being compared????? Of course, unless you know the individual in question...

As far as, the cloths issue... Who really cares about cloths... Not a martial artist! Applications concerning cloths, who cares. If you cant execute your skills on someone wearing a jacket, t-shirt, uniform, tank top, bare skin, etc, than somethings wrong with that aspect of training... Aplications huh, what would you do against someone with no shirt on or a flimsy top, lol. At the most nothing or you might tear the top off :rolleyes: . People who wear jackets, sweat shirts, hoodies, etc, lol, that type of clothing is easy to grab and assist with throws and chokes.... BUT, if you have to train with a certain type of clothing to make your techniques work, well then, good luck... The clothing issue has no real relavence, other than common knowledge...

The question on "What defines CMA or TCMA, I already gave my opinion on this subject on an earlier post...

CS...no you just assumed...

just because it is pretty does not mean that it is effective as a martialart..get a clue...like I said these people are dancers not martialartist...I have been trained to see the intent as to whether it is for show or for fighting..most of what I see is for show no matter how much they say it is a martial art..

as far as the uniform just read my proceeding post ..get a clue... of course the uniform does not matter in the grand picture ..but it sure seems to matter to alot of folk here that use it to define what is and what is not kung fu CMA or TCMA....this was my point... I do not need a specific piece of clothing to perform or apply my techniques...or to legitimize my art

[tattooedmonk]

http://historical-pankrati