Is Shaolin-Do for real?

[kwaichang]

Originally Posted by Pk_StyLeZ
so....why do you believe your lineage and not someone elses lineage?
anyone can easily claim they learn from blah blah in the year yada yada and learn from who who doing this time..blah blah blah
who cares
NO ONE WILL EVER BE ABLE TO PROVE WHICH IS THE AUTHENTHIC STYLE OF THE ORIGINAL AND FIRST SHAOLIN
these debates are stupid and pointless
Also why pay attention to a persons observation who has never performed SD.
I hope all had a merry Christmas.

That blog The Only Truely Authentic Shaolin System has alot of info that relates to SD and its authenticity many on there contradict what they have fought for on this blog section. KC:)

[Mas Judt]

But you are missing the point. Kool-Aid man wasn't OLD enough to ever be at the Shaolin temple. Until you can explain that, the mystery remains.... :D

[BM2]

Ha, you only posted that knowing I have to go to work and will not be able to photo shop Mr. K-A in.
There is always tomorrow...:D

[Shaolinlueb]

Lineage's were something they jsut started to keep track of in the late 1800's and the early 1900's.

[MasterKiller]

Lineage's were something they jsut started to keep track of in the late 1800's and the early 1900's.

Sorry, but considering Chinese culture worships it's ancestors, I believe you are mistaken. Family trees were well documented.

[Mas Judt]

"Shaolin Wookie has the same IP as Seppuku"

Hah! I knew he was a troll...

[Shaolin Wookie]

And for my 500th post:
It is an urban legend that the Kool-Aid man has died. He recently was starring in a reality TV show and will be on the next "Dancing with the Stars."
.

He got cut during the tryouts. Apparently, it had something to do with the fact that the Kool-Aid Man refused to use the door, and it was costing the production a ****load in brick walls.

[mkriii]

I thought he got cut because Shaolin Do students drink cool-aid as prescribed to them by Grandmaster Sin. I crack myself up sometimes......lol. I should become a comedian.

[BlueTravesty]

I crack myself up sometimes.....
Please do. Total immersion in Dry Ice is an effective way to accomplish this.

lol. I should become a comedian.
comedian, sideshow freak, about the same thing these days.

(for the record, I'm NOT an SD'er, you're just annoying)

[BM2]

Please do. Total immersion in Dry Ice is an effective way to accomplish this.


comedian, sideshow freak, about the same thing these days.

(for the record, I'm NOT an SD'er, you're just annoying)

Now, that was funny :)

[Judge Pen]

What's annoying about mrkiii is that he thinks he's cool. There's a reason he annoys SD and non-SD alike.

[BentMonk]

IMO the legends and mythology in TCMA history make it more fun. I suspect they are what drew most of us to TCMA in the first place. I think the legends should inspire you to train harder. Duh, you're not going to gain super natural powers, but at least it's something cool to think about while you're training your ass off. I might never be able to swim with my pecs, but I might end up being one tough bent dude from trying. :D

[Citong Shifu]

IMO the legends and mythology in TCMA history make it more fun. I suspect they are what drew most of us to TCMA in the first place. I think the legends should inspire you to train harder. Duh, you're not going to gain super natural powers, but at least it's something cool to think about while you're training your ass off. I might never be able to swim with my pecs, but I might end up being one tough bent dude from trying. :D

Now this is more like it! Myths & Legends. I think we all can agree on this one. Personally, I can say that this is one aspect of the cma that captured me in my early cma training, lol... It wasn't too much longer before I realized that these myths & legends translated to working your @ss off to obtain skills that would normally be beyond one's reach. Sure, I've heard and pass on alot of "true stories or lineage history", but the myths & legends some how make it all worth while...

As far as - true shaolin, etc - we all pretty much take the words of our teachers, within reason and go from there. One day, maybe we will all stand corrected, who knows. Me included, lol.... Until then, I am true shaolin :D. Just joking. Couldn't help myself...

Everyone have a great & safe New Year celebration.
CS

[kwaichang]

When i 1st trained I was told by my teacher that if you tried you could punch and kick fast enogh you could out run your shadow/ and punch with enough snap to tear a round hole in a piece of news paper and snap your punches hard enough with enough focus to cause a miniature POP or air collapsing in on itself. Later I asked about those things after training about 5 years on it. He said didnt i tell you those are just legends. I said no. he said oops sorry. But I wasnt I was faster and more powerful for it and I did out run my shadow and tear paper from the snap in a punch. Hey the stories work WOW. KC:) For real!!!!

[Shaolin Wookie]

Not to burst your bubble, but you didn't outrun your own shadow, unless of course you're punching faster than the speed of light (which can travel around our globe roughly 8 times per second), which is pretty impressive I must say. It's more than enough to tear a hole in a piece of paper. It'd probably incinerate the sucker and consume you in the flames of the afterburn.

[Chain Whip]

Shaolinlueb: Lineage's were something they jsut started to keep track of in the late 1800's and the early 1900's.

Sorry, but considering Chinese culture worships it's ancestors, I believe you are mistaken. Family trees were well documented.

Where would one see this "documentation?"

If you went to the old Chen Village training hall (not the new one built in 1992) in the entry area they had stone markers with the Chen lineage engraved starting with generation One all the way up to modern day. However, for generations Two through Eight they had no names engraved and admitted they had no idea who the lineage holders were for those seven generations. I'm sure other styles did a better job of tracking their lineage - if they actually cared. In the case of the Chen Family you could not say their "Family tree was well documented"

[BM2]

There were gaps in their line where instead of a name, a series of dots were placed where the name was not known. I don't recall seven series of dots in a row but hey, it was a long time since I saw it. But didn't it have quite a lot of named generations?

[kwaichang]

SW sorry but you dont have to out run the speed of light just the speed of sight you werent there so no matter I can still punch fast enough tou put your lights out. Shoot I am so fast I turn out the lights and am in bed before it is dark HAHA KC:):rolleyes::eek::mad::cool::D;):p:o:(

[Shaolin Wookie]

Here's how much lineage matters:

My grandfather traced my family tree through our nation's libraries because he wanted to see if we were "Mayflower material" (yeah, he's like that :rolleyes:), and got our family tree back to medieval times. He didn't examine it, but I interpreted it for him. Three of my ancestors are the names of Shakespeare plays, and five of them occur as characters in his plays, and I'm related to both Charlemagne and the Plantagenets, who ruled France and England for several centuries. You remember the villain from Braveheart, Edward I? Yup, my greatX20 grandaddy....LOL.....

Now, I'm a full-time dockworker, part-time communications officer, and a grad-student 1/2 done with his coursework, studying Shaolin-Do.

Lineages don't mean d1ck.:D

[Chain Whip]

There were gaps in their line where instead of a name, a series of dots were placed where the name was not known. I don't recall seven series of dots in a row but hey, it was a long time since I saw it. But didn't it have quite a lot of named generations?

Yes, they had the other 11 or 12 generations listed. I don't remember if the 19th Generation was listed. They are probably still fighting about whose name should go there.:)

[BlueTravesty]

IMO the legends and mythology in TCMA history make it more fun. I suspect they are what drew most of us to TCMA in the first place. I think the legends should inspire you to train harder. Duh, you're not going to gain super natural powers, but at least it's something cool to think about while you're training your ass off. I might never be able to swim with my pecs, but I might end up being one tough bent dude from trying. :D

Which is fine as far as it goes. Those myths and legends are colorful folk tales that excite the imagination, and are not harmful if they are taken with a grain of salt by people in this day and age. For example, the supposed founder of the style I was practicing (in one version of the history) was one Yen Qing, who just happened to also be a prominent character in the novel "The Water Margin." I highly doubt this. However, the account of this character using "Mizong Stepping" to confuse his enemies and cover his tracks in the snow engages the imagination.

The problem occurs when people try to use the preponderance of myths and legends as justification for creating entirely new myths and legends that amount to outright falsehoods. Such as "We do the real 'combat' versions of CMA forms. Frog button-uniforms are just movie props. All kung fu today, even from Taiwan and Hong Kong is just performance art. The fact that Shaolin Monks today do Modern Wushu totally invalidates all those traditional forms they practice." etc.

FWIW, it seems that more than a few SD'ers take the story of the style's founding with a grain of salt, and stick with the style not because of some delusion of it being the last "real shaolin" but because they like the class. Which is awesome. Everyone should find a class they like and stick with it. If they enjoy it, and it works for them, super. The ones who believe in the stories, and believe their Mantis looks different from say, Seven Star Praying Mantis because their Mantis is more "combative" :rolleyes: well, they deserve whatever flack they get. (combative forms... tee-hee.)

Also, it would be one thing for me to claim that my style's founder could walk using only his buttocks. It would be an idiotic fallcy for me to claim to be able to do this myself though, and never be inclined to prove it. I would be a liar if I were to teach a class and tell my students this.

"Yeah, I can totally do a 8-minute mile by walking on my glutes. But I don't feel like it today. Practice hard, kids."

[BM2]

Here's how much lineage matters:

My grandfather traced my family tree through our nation's libraries because he wanted to see if we were "Mayflower material" (yeah, he's like that :rolleyes:), and got our family tree back to medieval times. He didn't examine it, but I interpreted it for him. Three of my ancestors are the names of Shakespeare plays, and five of them occur as characters in his plays, and I'm related to both Charlemagne and the Plantagenets, who ruled France and England for several centuries. You remember the villain from Braveheart, Edward I? Yup, my greatX20 grandaddy....LOL.....

Now, I'm a full-time dockworker, part-time communications officer, and a grad-student 1/2 done with his coursework, studying Shaolin-Do.

Lineages don't mean d1ck.:D


I wouldn't place too much accuracy on that. My Aunt has been researching since the late sixties and has found many errors after verifing what she was believed oringinally to be correct. Also 5% of each generation doesn't have the father they think they do. Not from adultry really, the mother would take the unmarried daughter's child to raise as her own. I read that the marriage and first born of even the Purtians would place many premature births for the first borns. People have always been people. Sorta like what happened here when our then Lt. Governor knocked up his wife before the wedding and they played it that the +8lb baby came early:o :rolleyes: Yeah right.
There are many companies doing DNA on family names and can tell about what generation you are apart by the difference in change.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Isn't that the point I was just trying to make? Royalty-->Runt in short generational spans?

[Shaolindynasty]

but if your teacher sucks chances are you will suck also.

Lineage does mean something

[BM2]

Isn't that the point I was just trying to make? Royalty-->Runt in short generational spans?

No, I'm saying that odds are you're not of royal blood. If you think you are, you could do the DNA testing and be verified. My Aunt told me that there are many errors in lineage. When she researched and sent in for inclusion to the relatives of George Washington family, after looking at the pedigree, they too thought it was correct and my Aunt only found the mistake when tracing further. We were not descended from George Washington's maternal great grandfather after all. Along the line someone had the wrong John Ball in the same county,in the same year in Virgina. Many people think they are related to famous people or assume that they are descended from a Knight. Those family coat of arms are most likely not yours either unless you can find a direct line from a Knight with that surname.

[Shaolin Wookie]

That was my point....that lineages aren't trustworthy in themselves.

He spent 5 years researching it, so it's accurate to a point. Not that it matters much. My ancestors on both sides of the family kept jumping between Ireland/Scotland and the US. They did it like 7-8 times. Nobody went back to either Ireland or Scotland these last two generations. I might have to move there, just for the sake of tradition. It sucks...I was like one generation away from havin' a sweet accent.:D

[SDJerry]

From my understanding of chinese culture... lineage is very important. If you can't trace back where you came from then you do not exist. This differs from our culture here in the states so I can see why it's hard for people to really understand the impact of it. That can be said for a lot of subjects when comparing different cultures.

[DPL]

The problem occurs when people try to use the preponderance of myths and legends as justification for creating entirely new myths and legends that amount to outright falsehoods.

Like, say, our government does regularly? Or most organized religions? Or the history you learned to be true? This is a human problem, not an SD problem, except in the sense that SD is a subset of humanity.

Folks on this board like to rely on written history as a source of truth, theoretically knowing full-well that written truth changes over time, just like word-of-mouth truth changes with the mood and memory of the teller.

I've watched the teaching of hot-button issues like the Civil War and Hitler change and modify during my relatively short lifetime. Not because new discoveries were made, but because the folks developing the curriculum don't like teaching certain things.

H3ll, Will Smith just got flame-broiled by the media for having the nerve to say that Hitler didn't wake up in the morning and say 'I'm gonna be evil today.' The point is a valid one, but it's completely unacceptable now to picture Hitler as human, or having good intentions, even though that's the smartest way to teach about the man because it shows we all have the potential to be monsters, and that good intentions can lead to horrible crimes.

Just think what a civilization 1000 years from now would think of the causes of the Civil War if the only record they had of the event is an intentionally politically correct high school history book written in the last few years, versus what they would think if they only had access to the same type of book written 30 years ago. It would be a starkly different view of the causes leading up to the same event, as well as a starkly different view of Abraham Lincoln.

The concept of pure historical truth is one of the most ridiculous conceits a human being could ever imagine, because our experiences, beliefs and cultures so thoroughly tint our perceptions. The SD folks believe what they do and the anti-SDers believe something different. Each has reasons for their beliefs the other side will not accept.

This is the part where the really, really slow people will say 'well that's because my reasons are good ones and yours are stupid', 'I have documentation,' etc., which misses the entire freaking point.

History is littered with opposing groups of people who can't for the life of them understand how the other side could be so stupidly close-minded or blind to 'obvious' truths.

Which is also why this thread will likely go on forever. You have two groups of people who enjoy and believe in what they do, completely convinced that the other group can't see the light.

Who cares which light is the 'real' light, or the better light, or if it's a lamp or a fire or a flashlight, or which light has an owner's manual endorsed by the Chinese manufacturer?

It serves as a light in the darkness for people who need it and that's all that should matter.

Happy New Year.

[BlueTravesty]

Like, say, our government does regularly? Or most organized religions? Or the history you learned to be true? This is a human problem, not an SD problem, except in the sense that SD is a subset of humanity.

Folks on this board like to rely on written history as a source of truth, theoretically knowing full-well that written truth changes over time, just like word-of-mouth truth changes with the mood and memory of the teller.


Interesting view, though I fail to see why you quoted my post to make it, as it doesn't have much relevance to the central point I was trying to make.

I could also try to deflect the argument by saying "I take it you are a supporter of organized religion and other institutions since you use their actions to justify whatever the heck it is you're talking about." And I would have a valid point in doing so. However, rather than taking a small snippet of your post and rebutting that while ignoring the rest of it, I'll actually, you know, rebut your post. Ain't I nice?


I've watched the teaching of hot-button issues like the Civil War and Hitler change and modify during my relatively short lifetime. Not because new discoveries were made, but because the folks developing the curriculum don't like teaching certain things.

H3ll, Will Smith just got flame-broiled by the media for having the nerve to say that Hitler didn't wake up in the morning and say 'I'm gonna be evil today.' The point is a valid one, but it's completely unacceptable now to picture Hitler as human, or having good intentions, even though that's the smartest way to teach about the man because it shows we all have the potential to be monsters, and that good intentions can lead to horrible crimes.


Given your experience in this matter, I can understand where you're coming from. When I was a high-schooler, we were taught in a more open manner, and I recall the teaching of Hitler still portrayed him as a muderous megalomaniac, didn't just stop there, and showed his supposed reasons. We were taught that it was important to realize that there are people out there who use socio-political circumstances in order to justify horrible things, like people strapping bombs to their chests, because they don't like a certain ethnicity in a country hundreds of miles away. Perhaps this is not an issue with written history, as it is with individual and isolated elements of the educational system? (interesting sidebar, but still has zero relevance to the post you quoted.)


Just think what a civilization 1000 years from now would think of the causes of the Civil War if the only record they had of the event is an intentionally politically correct high school history book written in the last few years, versus what they would think if they only had access to the same type of book written 30 years ago. It would be a starkly different view of the causes leading up to the same event, as well as a starkly different view of Abraham Lincoln.

Well, we already have this. You know "Abraham Lincoln singhandedly started the Civil War so he could set the slaves free!" This is the version I was taught until about, oh, 6th grade. Gradually in each year of school, layers of the illusion were removed. By High School, I eventually learned that the causes of the Civil War were rich and complex. Not all the Union were the good guys, and not all of the Confederacy were bad guys. Again, I'm sorry to hear of your particular bad experience, but I cannot say that my experience was similar.

Was there another person's post you meant to quote for this particular argument?


The concept of pure historical truth is one of the most ridiculous conceits a human being could ever imagine, because our experiences, beliefs and cultures so thoroughly tint our perceptions. The SD folks believe what they do and the anti-SDers believe something different. Each has reasons for their beliefs the other side will not accept.


I can see where you're coming from here, as well. I consider myself at least partially existentialist, and while I do have beliefs in certain things, I do have a distinct hatred for just about every form of dogmatism out there. This includes anti-dogmatic dogmatism. As well as Anti-Dogmatic-Anti-Dogmatism.

Since you brought up the point about the lack of pure historical truth (though I'm still not sure exactly what it was in response to, if anything.) I'll be happy to use that to make a point. Yes, we know the reasons behind the Civil War aren't as cut and dry as grade-school classrooms make them out to be, and it seems we're always changing in our editoralizing of certain historical events. Trying to insert modern perspectives into situations we'll never understand.

We may learn more about motives, or rather, try to use modern culture and ideas to interpolate, however, The Confederacy still led an attack on Fort Sumter. Perhaps we'll learn this didn't start the war someday. Maybe it was a plot by the decendants of Ghengis Khan to abolish slavery to ensure the eventual advent of Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches. However, the Confederacy still attacked Fort Sumter in 1861 A.D. or C.E. or whatever the heck you want to call it.


This is the part where the really, really slow people will say 'well that's because my reasons are good ones and yours are stupid', 'I have documentation,' etc., which misses the entire freaking point.

Sure, which is kind of like someone railing against the concept of historical dogmatism in a highly dogmatic fashion because they feel their vaguely-explained philosophical notions justify it. Good thing you're not doing that.


History is littered with opposing groups of people who can't for the life of them understand how the other side could be so stupidly close-minded or blind to 'obvious' truths.

Which is also why this thread will likely go on forever. You have two groups of people who enjoy and believe in what they do, completely convinced that the other group can't see the light.

Who cares which light is the 'real' light, or the better light, or if it's a lamp or a fire or a flashlight, or which light has an owner's manual endorsed by the Chinese manufacturer?

It serves as a light in the darkness for people who need it and that's all that should matter.

Happy New Year.

Good point, and one I have espoused many times of this forum. Including in the post you quoted. Pehaps I erred in taking this as a rebuttal? Otherwise, I would be led to believe that historical subjectivity and the lack of absolute truths in this world somehow connote to why it's ok to tell a student who asks why SD tiger-crane looks different from Hung Gar's "Just ignore those Hung Gar guys, they're just doing Hong Kong dance-fu. We're doing the REAL SHAOLIN Tiger-Crane."

None of this seems to justify why it's ok to use inflammatory statements to get peoples' dander up and then say "Well, it's all relative." (Such as "The reason our forms look different is because you just do dancey-ballet-fu." Or "MY MASTER IS BETTER AT CHEN TAICHI THAN ANYONE IN CHEN VILLAGE!" or that nonsense about the frog-button uniform just being a movie prop.) Relativism does not use superlatives in the context of "better or worse." But I guess it's just all relative, huh?

Happy New Year to you too. Stay safe, lots of horrible drivers on the road tonight.

[DPL]

Interesting view, though I fail to see why you quoted my post to make it, as it doesn't have much relevance to the central point I was trying to make.

Sorry, guess I should've explained more clearly why your observation about 'outright falsehoods' in SD would be a perfect jumping board into a discussion about truth. In retrospect it's much more apparent to me that the connection between falsehood and truth would be a difficult one to make. My sincerest apologies.

The point is, what is the real truth, and more importantly, what does it ultimately matter as long as the folks are deriving value from what they're doing. Your post excused only those who admit or tolerate your viewpoint that SD's stories are likely full of crap. In your paraphrased words, anyone believing the SD stories deserves what pain and verbal abuse they get. My post is pointing out, in an admittedly roundabout way, that they should be excused and allowed to practice what they believe without believing your way, because determining 'real truth' is such a fruitless and ultimately prejudiced exercise.

It's relevant to your entire post.


I could also try to deflect the argument by saying "I take it you are a supporter of organized religion and other institutions since you use their actions to justify whatever the heck it is you're talking about." And I would have a valid point in doing so. However, rather than taking a small snippet of your post and rebutting that while ignoring the rest of it, I'll actually, you know, rebut your post. Ain't I nice?

Yes, your generosity is truly overwhelming. Your reading comprehension less so, but hey, I'll take what I can get.

The point, again, was that truth is a near-irrelevant concept in situations like this. I could care less about which version of truth is taught or handed down by the government, organized religion, etc. as long as there's a general recognition that it can never be more than a partial truth, and an understanding of what that actually implies about just nearly everything you believe.


Given your experience in this matter, I can understand where you're coming from. When I was a high-schooler, we were taught in a more open manner, and I recall the teaching of Hitler still portrayed him as a muderous megalomaniac, didn't just stop there, and showed his supposed reasons. We were taught that it was important to realize that there are people out there who use socio-political circumstances in order to justify horrible things, like people strapping bombs to their chests, because they don't like a certain ethnicity in a country hundreds of miles away. Perhaps this is not an issue with written history, as it is with individual and isolated elements of the educational system? (interesting sidebar, but still has zero relevance to the post you quoted.)


Which ultimately supports my point - you talk about your experience in this matter, I talk about mine. You reach one potential conclusion, I reach another. If you really want to argue the sources and breadth of impact of educational curriculum decisions we can do that, but it's a meta-argument to the actual point.


Well, we already have this. You know "Abraham Lincoln singhandedly started the Civil War so he could set the slaves free!" This is the version I was taught until about, oh, 6th grade. Gradually in each year of school, layers of the illusion were removed. By High School, I eventually learned that the causes of the Civil War were rich and complex. Not all the Union were the good guys, and not all of the Confederacy were bad guys. Again, I'm sorry to hear of your particular bad experience, but I cannot say that my experience was similar.

Where did I talk about 'my bad experience'? I pointed out a difference in the way the curriculum was taught years ago and the way it's taught today. This is actually a fairly commonly-held observation and not one I'm drawing on my specific experience for, although I do recall that the point was made to me from the first time I learned about the Civil War that it wasn't started because of slavery. Your point above supports my point that this is not the way it's universally taught, which, yet again, supports the argument against any kind of real truth.


Was there another person's post you meant to quote for this particular argument?


Nope - I was still working my way right up to the point that clearly rebuts your post. Keep trying, though - your clever banter is amusing and makes me smile.



I can see where you're coming from here, as well. I consider myself at least partially existentialist, and while I do have beliefs in certain things, I do have a distinct hatred for just about every form of dogmatism out there. This includes anti-dogmatic dogmatism. As well as Anti-Dogmatic-Anti-Dogmatism.


Good for you. It makes me feel good that not only do you have beliefs and hatreds, but you have beliefs and hatreds that you can wittily apply to your off-target response to my post.


Since you brought up the point about the lack of pure historical truth (though I'm still not sure exactly what it was in response to, if anything.) I'll be happy to use that to make a point. Yes, we know the reasons behind the Civil War aren't as cut and dry as grade-school classrooms make them out to be, and it seems we're always changing in our editoralizing of certain historical events. Trying to insert modern perspectives into situations we'll never understand.

We may learn more about motives, or rather, try to use modern culture and ideas to interpolate, however, The Confederacy still led an attack on Fort Sumter. Perhaps we'll learn this didn't start the war someday. Maybe it was a plot by the decendants of Ghengis Khan to abolish slavery to ensure the eventual advent of Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches. However, the Confederacy still attacked Fort Sumter in 1861 A.D. or C.E. or whatever the heck you want to call it.


Yes, we certainly know that. We also know that the attack was initiated after about four-five months of Confederate requests that the occupying Union army peacefully surrender and vacate the fort which they'd occupied AFTER South Carolina legally seceded from the Union. And that the Union forces steadfastly refused to vacate the fort. The fort they were occupying in non-US territory, according to the laws of the time. But hey, what does that matter, right?

Wow, your generosity really does know no bounds. Thank you for that perfect example of my point. You're the best. Really, you are. No, no - I mean it. You're the best.



Sure, which is kind of like someone railing against the concept of historical dogmatism in a highly dogmatic fashion because they feel their vaguely-explained philosophical notions justify it. Good thing you're not doing that.


Excellent shot at the straw man. Blasted one of his arms right off. In addition to being uncommonly generous, you're also an excellent shot!


Good point, and one I have espoused many times of this forum. Including in the post you quoted.

Actually, you said something along the lines of it's okay for the SD folks who take the SD history with a grain of salt to enjoy SD, but anyone who believes all the SD propaganda deserves what they get. I'm obviously paraphrasing, but once again, my point rebuts yours exactly. As long as they believe YOUR truth, it's okay. If they choose to believe their own ideas that are different than yours, well then, they deserve any pain inflicted on them.



Pehaps I erred in taking this as a rebuttal? Otherwise, I would be led to believe that historical subjectivity and the lack of absolute truths in this world somehow connote to why it's ok to tell a student who asks why SD tiger-crane looks different from Hung Gar's "Just ignore those Hung Gar guys, they're just doing Hong Kong dance-fu. We're doing the REAL SHAOLIN Tiger-Crane."

None of this seems to justify why it's ok to use inflammatory statements to get peoples' dander up and then say "Well, it's all relative." (Such as "The reason our forms look different is because you just do dancey-ballet-fu." Or "MY MASTER IS BETTER AT CHEN TAICHI THAN ANYONE IN CHEN VILLAGE!" or that nonsense about the frog-button uniform just being a movie prop.)

Turn that mirror on yourself, straw-killer. Read some random selection of this specific thread and count the number of times an SD person has used inflammatory statements as opposed to one of the non-SD folks. At the very least, I'm betting it's about even. My recollection of reading this thread and related ones for the past 7-8 years has been that generally SD folks respond to attacks as opposed to the opposite, but of course that's just my perspective.

And you'll note, by the way, that at no point have I declared my beliefs in the SD 'mythology' or any other 'mythology', so please do me the respect of not assuming I believe things I haven't claimed. I'm simply observing and commenting.


Relativism does not use superlatives in the context of "better or worse." But I guess it's just all relative, huh?


Nicely put.


Happy New Year to you too. Stay safe, lots of horrible drivers on the road tonight.

Your turn. Looking forward to your response.

[Judge Pen]

Nice ping-pong match DPL and BlueTravesty have going one here.

Question: how many different versions of Tiger-Crane are out there (aside from SD's)?

[kwaichang]

I know of 5 myself also for every practioner there is a "new" style of Tiger Crane. That said , some of you remind me of a kid I met playing a Kung Fu Video game. He felt and said that he thought he could do Kung Fu Martial Arts because he was good at the game. he was mistaken of course. KC:)

[B-Rad]

Question: how many different versions of Tiger-Crane are out there (aside from SD's)?

Quite a few, though I was thinking Shaolin-Do's was supposed to be the "by the book" version. At least an SDer had told me there's was pretty much identical to the book he had. I keep seeing it pop up in smaller styles out of the mainland other than Hung Gar and it's branches. Like a small Tian Gang Quan vcd series from a 90+yo master on plumpub. It's filtered into numerous "villiage" or "folk" styles.

[BlueTravesty]

Sorry, guess I should've explained more clearly why your observation about 'outright falsehoods' in SD would be a perfect jumping board into a discussion about truth. In retrospect it's much more apparent to me that the connection between falsehood and truth would be a difficult one to make. My sincerest apologies.
Ok, NOW I see where you're coming from. While truth can be subjective, the sorts of views espoused by SD websites, such as the views I mentioned in previous post, are devoid of any OBJECTIVE truth. Unless one believes NOTHING is absolutely or objectively true, which would be something of a paradox. If nothing is absolutely true, that means that the statement that nothing is absolutely true is not absolutely true. Which means some things are absolutely true. I think I need an aspirin.

The point is, what is the real truth, and more importantly, what does it ultimately matter as long as the folks are deriving value from what they're doing. Your post excused only those who admit or tolerate your viewpoint that SD's stories are likely full of crap. In your paraphrased words, anyone believing the SD stories deserves what pain and verbal abuse they get. My post is pointing out, in an admittedly roundabout way, that they should be excused and allowed to practice what they believe without believing your way, because determining 'real truth' is such a fruitless and ultimately prejudiced exercise.

It's relevant to your entire post.

Well, I didn't mean to imply that they somehow weren't allowed to practice or believe what they wish. But they shouldn't be excused for making inflammatory statements and having to go through the "pain" of backing them up.

As you said, this problem is not limited to SD.

For example, in the book Nei Jia Quan (which I have to get back- I let a friend borrow it.) One of the "masters" in there is convinced that Chen-style Tai Chi is a government fake and that Yang Style is a true derivative of what was passed down by Zhang San Feng. The guy teaches for free, and may be great at Tai Chi. perhaps he was taught all this by his master- however, that does not change the fact that Tai Chi started in Chen Village and he is accusing them of propagating a lie. If he wants to believe that Yang style is the best style, super duper. If he wants to believe that Zhang San Feng created Tai Chi, fine. It's when he uses those beliefs to tear others down that, well, kinda gets my dander up.

Now I will admit that the very first post I made in this series did seem to target those who believe in the SD history- that has more to do however, with those who believe its entirety. Including all those nice bits about all currently taught CMA from China being fake, the Shaolin Monks being wushu imposters, etc. that probably started out as "cornered-animal" style counters to perfectly valid points put forth by the rest of the CMA community.

If one believes the stuff about Su Kong Tai Djin, etc etc. That's perfectly fine. It's when they believe the stuff that typically comes with it- the current people at Shaolin are just wushu fakes, those frog-button uniforms are just props from kung fu movies, any kung fu that stemmed from Mainland China, even the stuff from masters who fled the Cultural Revolution, is a bunch of dancey performance art, SD forms look different from the forms in other styles because they're the real COMBAT FORMS, etc. that I have no reservations in countering their arguments and calling their integrity and/or their analytical abilities into question. Whether it's true for them because they believe it because all truth is relative is irrelevant when someone takes it out of their own head and puts it in someone else's face.

Instead, the SD "extremists" (for lack of a better word) will often just say "well you don't know for sure and nothing is really set in stone as far as CMA history goes." One can't just decide to become a relativist because the current debate climate is less than favorable.

Yes, your generosity is truly overwhelming. Your reading comprehension less so, but hey, I'll take what I can get.

The point, again, was that truth is a near-irrelevant concept in situations like this. I could care less about which version of truth is taught or handed down by the government, organized religion, etc. as long as there's a general recognition that it can never be more than a partial truth, and an understanding of what that actually implies about just nearly everything you believe.

But there are certain truths. The Masters who fled the Cultrual Revolution had NO WAY of coming into contact with the Modern Wushu curriculum. It didn't happen. That is truth. If one is going to say their stuff is performance arts, one must present technical facts for why this is so.

All truth is partial, in and of itself. However, I believe there are truths that make this philosophical disclaimer impractical. Water is wet. Yes, when frozen so cold that pressure does not melt it, it is dry. This loophole, from a pragmatic standpoint, can be ignored.

Truth can never be more than partial, but it has to still have SOME truth to it. Not all things are absolutely true, but not all things are relative. there ARE absolute truths.

IF someone were to argue that the other styles claiming to teach Shaolin are false, that would be absolutely untrue. There is the Shaolin Temple. Whatever Martial Arts are taught there are Shaolin Martial Arts by virtue of the fact that they're taught there. The fact that they mix modern wushu with traditional Kung Fu does not and cannot negate this. I don't say this because I feel you take this position, but to point out that there ARE claims made by some of those within SD (mostly through the websites- their face for the general public) that are out and out false

[BlueTravesty]

Which ultimately supports my point - you talk about your experience in this matter, I talk about mine. You reach one potential conclusion, I reach another. If you really want to argue the sources and breadth of impact of educational curriculum decisions we can do that, but it's a meta-argument to the actual point.

Great. But nowhere did I ever say that your experience was invalid, or that you must be wrong because I was taught differently. I don't operate that way. If you said that your conclusion the way things are, period, or that my experience was invalid, then you would be absolutely wrong. That would not be relative.

Where did I talk about 'my bad experience'? I pointed out a difference in the way the curriculum was taught years ago and the way it's taught today. This is actually a fairly commonly-held observation and not one I'm drawing on my specific experience for, although I do recall that the point was made to me from the first time I learned about the Civil War that it wasn't started because of slavery. Your point above supports my point that this is not the way it's universally taught, which, yet again, supports the argument against any kind of real truth.

I don't know that it supports the argument against ANY kind of real truth. Can we agree that there was an American Civil War, and that the bang-bang-shooty-shooting started in 1861?

Can we agree that the fact that Shaolin Monks do Wushu for public performance tours does not negate their practice of Traditional Songshan Shaolin Forms (such as HongQuan, Luohan, etc.) Can we agree that those forms are Shaolin by virtue of the fact that they are taught and endorsed by the Shaolin Temple, and among the practitioners there are a few, full-fledged monks?

Nope - I was still working my way right up to the point that clearly rebuts your post. Keep trying, though - your clever banter is amusing and makes me smile.

ok, you "clearly" rebutted one portion of what you thought my post meant. I'll admit that I posted that post assuming the context of my previously stated opinion, which I cannot realistically just assume someone will read, especially on a thread this big. That was my bad.

What I feel is wrong is when someone uses that belief to construct other unnecessary beliefs, such as "all those other styles are false" and that core point went unaddressed.

Good for you. It makes me feel good that not only do you have beliefs and hatreds, but you have beliefs and hatreds that you can wittily apply to your off-target response to my post.

And it makes me feel good that not only do you have a sense of sarcasm, but you have a sense of sarcasm that you can wittily apply to my off-target response to your off-target response to my original post.

Yes, we certainly know that. We also know that the attack was initiated after about four-five months of Confederate requests that the occupying Union army peacefully surrender and vacate the fort which they'd occupied AFTER South Carolina legally seceded from the Union. And that the Union forces steadfastly refused to vacate the fort. The fort they were occupying in non-US territory, according to the laws of the time. But hey, what does that matter, right?

Well, since my use of that point was to clarify the fact that while we may not know everything about individual historical events, there are certain facets that we can know with certainty (Dates, times, etc.,) indeed, what difference does that all make? At no time did I make any point that would put myself in ideological opposition to this.

Excellent shot at the straw man. Blasted one of his arms right off. In addition to being uncommonly generous, you're also an excellent shot!

Indeed, however, the straw man I was rooting for has dropped his gun, and it looks like he has decided to joust with the one you've been railing against. Arguments over misinterpretations of others' posts can do that (yes, that applies to both of us.)

Actually, you said something along the lines of it's okay for the SD folks who take the SD history with a grain of salt to enjoy SD, but anyone who believes all the SD propaganda deserves what they get. I'm obviously paraphrasing, but once again, my point rebuts yours exactly. As long as they believe YOUR truth, it's okay. If they choose to believe their own ideas that are different than yours, well then, they deserve any pain inflicted on them.

To paraphrase my position
"The SD hardliners who respond to valid questions about their lineage with attacks on the lineages of others rather than actually defending their positions or, failing that, doing the research necessary to do so are jerks and deserve any 'pain' inflicted on them."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but as you said, this is not an SD problem, but a human one. The CLF and Wing Chun guys who inundate the Southern Board with lineage-based flame wars are a good example of this.

If an SD'er buys into the party line, fine. But when presented with a valid question (as opposed to a personal attack- THERE IS a difference) they can either A) Admit that they believe but they don't know for sure. or B) do some research to try to corroborate their position, or, failing that, admit there are some aspects of the SD history that may be less than accurate. I don't think any but mkriii are asking for a full-on recant.

Turn that mirror on yourself, straw-killer. Read some random selection of this specific thread and count the number of times an SD person has used inflammatory statements as opposed to one of the non-SD folks. At the very least, I'm betting it's about even. My recollection of reading this thread and related ones for the past 7-8 years has been that generally SD folks respond to attacks as opposed to the opposite, but of course that's just my perspective.

Sure, but not till my straw man can use that mirror to deflect your straw man's lance. There's plenty of both going on. For every "OMG! SIN THE' IS A LIAR YOU DO FAKE KUNG FU!" (who deserves whatever flack THEY get.) there's a poster who asks a valid question about SD's position on something, which is TAKEN as an attack, and the response is invariably some vitriolic tripe that amounts to "GIS LOOK EXACTLY LIKE MONK ROBES, YOUR UNIFORMS ARE MOVIE PROPS!" or "JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T DO COMMIE WUSHU LIKE YOU DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT CMA!" or "SD IS OBVIOUSLY REAL SHAOLIN. YOU'RE SO BLINDED BY YOUR OWN STYLE THAT YOU JUST CAN'T SEE IT!" in lieu of making arguments, which usually feature bothersome things like making points, counter-arguments, and the use of commonly-agreed-upon standards of sentence structure. (I'll note my own inadequacy in this department- I depend far too much on run-on sentences)

And you'll note, by the way, that at no point have I declared my beliefs in the SD 'mythology' or any other 'mythology', so please do me the respect of not assuming I believe things I haven't claimed. I'm simply observing and commenting

And you'll note, by the way, that at no point did I state you had. So please forgive me if you felt any disrespect was rendered- none was intended. However, since the point of my original post was how stupid it is to use one style's lineage story to dogmatically undermine others, I did interpret your rebuttal within that context- that you felt that the use of such dogmatic undermining, and the use of vitriolic non-arguments (my past few posts are filled with examples) was fully justified by the supposed nonexistance of absolute historical truth. Again, my bad

Nicely put.

Thanks :)

Your turn. Looking forward to your response.
Check

[BlueTravesty]

I know of 5 myself also for every practioner there is a "new" style of Tiger Crane. That said , some of you remind me of a kid I met playing a Kung Fu Video game. He felt and said that he thought he could do Kung Fu Martial Arts because he was good at the game. he was mistaken of course. KC:)

It wouldn't happen to be the video game that serves as my avatar, would it? ;)

Indeed, every practitioner has a different "style." SD's Tiger Crane doesn't look different because the Hung Gar guys are just Kung Fu Dancing Queens though. And not necessarily because it's somehow "not Tiger Crane." it looks different because Hung Gar guys spend years and years and years perfecting Tiger Crane, where for most SD'ers, it would seem it's another drop in the bucket.

As for how many styles there are, a Hung Gar friend of mine told me it was first only used in the Wong Fei Hung lineage of Hung Gar, and the village styles didn't feature until they started to merge somewhere around the turn of the century. Don't know how true that is. Apparently there are some "Village" styles of Hung Gar/Hung Kuen that do not include this form.

(as an aside, Once, while Sifu Stephan was teaching eagle claw techniques (of which I was on the receiving end,) a hipster-looking kid walked in, and in an accent somewhere between Charlie Chan and Pepe LePew gave a cartoonish bow and asked "Do I have potential?" Sifu Stephan took it in stride (though he twisted my wrist a tiny bit further, and gripped a bit tighter) smiled his radiantly fearsome happy smile, and said "No." The kid was visibly shaken by this and just ran out.)

[Judge Pen]

It wouldn't happen to be the video game that serves as my avatar, would it? ;)

Indeed, every practitioner has a different "style." SD's Tiger Crane doesn't look different because the Hung Gar guys are just Kung Fu Dancing Queens though. Didn't say that nor would I. And not necessarily because it's somehow "not Tiger Crane." it looks different because Hung Gar guys spend years and years and years perfecting Tiger Crane, where for most SD'ers, it would seem it's another drop in the bucket.That is certainly part of the problem, I confess. But it's the differences in the fundamental principles that one should focus on. And to that end, I've been taught two versions of Tiger/Crane in my day--SD's version and *gasp mrkiii*Ng family's version. They were both different, but to my eye SD's version was actually closer to "the norm." (And by norm I mean what most people accept as Tiger Crane in regard to form, flavor and principles. And let me be clear: I'm not saying there is anything incorrect about Ng's version--it was just different and different from most of the Tiger-Crane that I see examples of out there.

As for how many styles there are, a Hung Gar friend of mine told me it was first only used in the Wong Fei Hung lineage of Hung Gar, and the village styles didn't feature until they started to merge somewhere around the turn of the century. Don't know how true that is. Apparently there are some "Village" styles of Hung Gar/Hung Kuen that do not include this form.



My point is that I can't say that SD's version is any more or less correct that anyone elses. I can probably take the time to research you-tube and post a dozen examples of Tiger-Crane and analyze the simularities and differences of each to the version that I know, and in doing so I would offer the hypothesis that I would find as much similiar as different with each of the versions that I find. And in the end all I could say is that I believe that SD does a legitimate version of Tiger Crane and if properly worked and practiced would display the underlying principles and flavors that the consensus of the peanut gallery would accept. And I would say that most SD people never take the time to do that because it becomes another notch in the "forms they know" belt.

[kwaichang]

Wasnt aimed at you BT it was just something that happened, KC:)

[brucereiter]

if properly worked and practiced would display the underlying principles and flavors that the consensus of the peanut gallery would accept.

i would add the word taught to that list. in my experience many times material is taught by people with only a surface understanding of the material presented.

[Judge Pen]

i would add the word taught to that list. in my experience many times material is taught by people with only a surface understanding of the material presented.

You are correct. In my experience (I've had several teachers in SD and I've had the opportunity to visit many more classes) it's eye opening to see how teachers teach the same material differently.

[BlueTravesty]

Indeed, every practitioner has a different "style." SD's Tiger Crane doesn't look different because the Hung Gar guys are just Kung Fu Dancing Queens though. Didn't say that nor would I.

I didn't mean to imply that you were implying the above-referenced point, that was more or less an expansion upon a point in one of my previous posts. Lack of sleep and a bad day at work make memory foggyish (As my somewhat lacksidaisical typing in the previous posts may show.) I meant no disrespect, and apologize if any was taken.

My point is that I can't say that SD's version is any more or less correct that anyone elses. I can probably take the time to research you-tube and post a dozen examples of Tiger-Crane and analyze the simularities and differences of each to the version that I know, and in doing so I would offer the hypothesis that I would find as much similiar as different with each of the versions that I find. And in the end all I could say is that I believe that SD does a legitimate version of Tiger Crane and if properly worked and practiced would display the underlying principles and flavors that the consensus of the peanut gallery would accept. And I would say that most SD people never take the time to do that because it becomes another notch in the "forms they know" belt.

Which is the heart of the matter. Really, the standard of "correctness" is one of those 'gray areas.' I have no problem with a SD practitioner whose Tiger Crane is not as "deep" as the Hung Gar guy who's been practicing it every day for years. The SD stylist would, I imagine, practice Tiger Crane in order to take aspects from it and use them to supplement their overall fighting style, and move on to the next form to glean from that one whatever they may. I imagine each SD practitioner takes something different from each form that shapes their individual expression and fighting style.

The Hung Gar practitioner will train it time and again to get down to the very marrow of the form, using it to develop attributes that he feels vital not only to his fighting style but his own perceived identity as a practitioner of Hung Gar. In addition they'll practice other forms that reinforce many of the same characteristics while opening the practitioner's mind to other possibilities within the framework of that style. It's not better or worse, it's apples and oranges.

(I do believe that forms are not necessary for fighting- one can fight well without knowing a single form- but they can be helpful. They may not be the quickest way to @ss-kicking effectiveness, but when coupled with regular sparring, forms are probably the most enjoyable form of combative-oriented cardio there is.)

[BlueTravesty]

Wasnt aimed at you BT it was just something that happened, KC:)

I hear ya, I just said that because the NES cartridge in my avatar is an old, rather generic beat 'em up titled simply "Kung Fu" that I remember playing on a Play Choice 10 arcade machine in a grocery store when I was a wee one.

I can kind of somewhat sympathize with that feeling. When I first played God of War I was (mentally) inches away from looking online for some cool chain-daggers and a time machine so I could show those Athenian chumps what was what.

Man I miss Kung Fu (my wife will kill me if she hears me say that one more time!)

[Judge Pen]

I didn't mean to imply that you were implying the above-referenced point, that was more or less an expansion upon a point in one of my previous posts. Lack of sleep and a bad day at work make memory foggyish (As my somewhat lacksidaisical typing in the previous posts may show.) I meant no disrespect, and apologize if any was taken.


No offense taken. I have read some of the posts here that imply that anything but SD is a performance art and I roll my eyes at the stupidity of that impression as well. I think SD's versions have true origins and have evolved based upon geographical influence of being filtered through Indonesia and by the teaching method of mixing forms from different styles as part of a larger overall curriculum

Which is the heart of the matter. Really, the standard of "correctness" is one of those 'gray areas.' I have no problem with a SD practitioner whose Tiger Crane is not as "deep" as the Hung Gar guy who's been practicing it every day for years. The SD stylist would, I imagine, practice Tiger Crane in order to take aspects from it and use them to supplement their overall fighting style, and move on to the next form to glean from that one whatever they may. I imagine each SD practitioner takes something different from each form that shapes their individual expression and fighting style.

Which is the point of SD imo. The curriculum that we have, I believe, is set up to focus on forms that will emphasize root, power, aggression, footwork, mobility etc. in a way that if taught and practiced correctly will improve one as a martial artist and build upon the prior material. Your description of how one would take what they can from a form in SD make aspects of it there own and take something else from a different form is very accurate in my opinion. My Tiger-Crane will not be as good as a hung gar guy who has trained in that style exclusively unless I take the time to focus and train in it with the same effort and intensity as the hung gar people, which would be difficult since there are many more things to learn and practice in SD that have different fundamental principles that tiger-crane.

The Hung Gar practitioner will train it time and again to get down to the very marrow of the form, using it to develop attributes that he feels vital not only to his fighting style but his own perceived identity as a practitioner of Hung Gar. In addition they'll practice other forms that reinforce many of the same characteristics while opening the practitioner's mind to other possibilities within the framework of that style. It's not better or worse, it's apples and oranges.

Ultimately, one in SD could back up, focus on the forms that compliment them personally and begin to refine forms like Tiger-Crane where they could cultivate a deeper knowledge of these forms. Many do this. Also, many of the gray-beards in SD started at a time where the curriculum was smaller and less diverse, and you can see that in the flavor of their forms as well.

(I do believe that forms are not necessary for fighting- one can fight well without knowing a single form- but they can be helpful. They may not be the quickest way to @ss-kicking effectiveness, but when coupled with regular sparring, forms are probably the most enjoyable form of combative-oriented cardio there is.)

I agree with this as well. Forms for fighting are a winding scenic country road. You can take the interstate and get there faster, but the country road is more romantic.

[Baqualin]

Hey JP & All,
Glad to see you all start the new year with GOOD conversation. Forms do not make you a fighter, but as stated earlier it sure is alot more fun for good cardio than a tread mill.
BQ

[mkriii]

Well Happy New Year to all my SD friends. Ya'll didn't drink to much of that cool-aid that GM Sin was giving out did you? I know me and my buddy Jimmy Beam partied together New Years Eve and had a good time. Then my other buddy Mr. Jack Daniels came over and kicked my arse. The next day I went and got my other friend George ****le to go get revenge on Mr. Daniels but it looked like Evan Williams already beat us to him and did a jump inside crescent kick to his face. We could still see the foot print on his right cheek. Other than that it was a good new years.

[kwaichang]

I disagree forms are for fighting with many more variables. I have trained full contact as they say and for boxing and kick boxing and I feel there is so much more in forms than we admit. I feel the essence of our fighting is there all we have to do is look and dig for it. Tiger crane for example has many techniques to use and apply. Perhaps many cannot apply them because they dont train realistically with the form itself. Application application and practice for the variables. Forms should not be discounted at all for fighting. KC:)

[Judge Pen]

I disagree forms are for fighting with many more variables. I have trained full contact as they say and for boxing and kick boxing and I feel there is so much more in forms than we admit. I feel the essence of our fighting is there all we have to do is look and dig for it. Tiger crane for example has many techniques to use and apply. Perhaps many cannot apply them because they dont train realistically with the form itself. Application application and practice for the variables. Forms should not be discounted at all for fighting. KC:)

I don't think I was discounting them, but I acknowledge that there are faster ways to learn to fight. Faster doesn't always mean better--that depends on the level/spirit/condition/skill of the individual. I think you get a broader and deeper knowlege of fighting by learning forms, but I think to learn forms properly you have to drill them and apply them in free sparring as well.

[Judge Pen]

Well Happy New Year to all my SD friends. Ya'll didn't drink to much of that cool-aid that GM Sin was giving out did you? I know me and my buddy Jimmy Beam partied together New Years Eve and had a good time. Then my other buddy Mr. Jack Daniels came over and kicked my arse. The next day I went and got my other friend George ****le to go get revenge on Mr. Daniels but it looked like Evan Williams already beat us to him and did a jump inside crescent kick to his face. We could still see the foot print on his right cheek. Other than that it was a good new years.

Shoot, and I was hoping that Johnny Walker would have driven the final nail in your coffin. There's always next year.

[Baqualin]

I disagree forms are for fighting with many more variables. I have trained full contact as they say and for boxing and kick boxing and I feel there is so much more in forms than we admit. I feel the essence of our fighting is there all we have to do is look and dig for it. Tiger crane for example has many techniques to use and apply. Perhaps many cannot apply them because they dont train realistically with the form itself. Application application and practice for the variables. Forms should not be discounted at all for fighting. KC:)

Your right....but you can be a great fighter without forms...thats all that was said.....an example of where your coming from....EML ask GMS how to improve his kicks....GMS told him to do Tai Chi (as slow as he could) 3 times a day for a year.....he said he almost died the first week...after a year his leg strength and kicking power was pretty impressive.......and that's without the actual techniques hidden in the form......just doing it!;)
BQ

[Lamassu]

I disagree forms are for fighting with many more variables. I have trained full contact as they say and for boxing and kick boxing and I feel there is so much more in forms than we admit. I feel the essence of our fighting is there all we have to do is look and dig for it. Tiger crane for example has many techniques to use and apply. Perhaps many cannot apply them because they dont train realistically with the form itself. Application application and practice for the variables. Forms should not be discounted at all for fighting. KC:)

I've always felt a helpful tool to use to 'dig out' the practical fighting applications in any given form is the 'Wooden dummy' predominately used in Wing Chun. I've played with one before and you can abuse the hell out of it with no worries of accidently hurting anybody and it improves your focus, precision, power, and quickness. Anyway, my two cents concerning using elements from your forms for the sake of fighting.

[kwaichang]

Then EML derived from the form what he needed at the time. Leg strength for stronger kicks etc. also timing and concept perhaps unconsciously as well as consciously. Lamassu as far as the dummy is concerned the whole idea is to utilize form techniques agaainst a target. The problem is the dummy does not actively move. Punching a bag 100 times is ok, but doing a form with 100 punches h has more conditioning effect due to angle changes and varied movement . The techniques are more than just Jab Hook Cross Backfist and uppercut. It is the varied timing and angle changes that condition the body and prevent overtraining injuries. KC

[Mas Judt]

Perhaps many cannot apply them because they dont train realistically with the form itself.

Individual CMA systems will often have unique forms of jibengong that reveal the body method. IF you understand the body method, the usage becomes apparent.

Otherwise your body may never do what was intended. A good example is the Hung Gar Tiger Crane - I've seen a lot of Kenmpo schools out there perform it badly. They really don't get it. The moves seem silly to them.

Then you see a guy who knows the material, and as they say, the clouds part.

So yeah, KC, this is a big deal in understanding material.

Now go read my comics! www.craveworld.com

[Baqualin]

Then EML derived from the form what he needed at the time. Leg strength for stronger kicks etc. also timing and concept perhaps unconsciously as well as consciously. KC

I was stating this as an example of what your saying about the importance of forms...I agree with you;) I was also just stating the fact that there's alot of great fighters out there with no knowledge of forms that's reality. BTW the older I get the more I like forms.....I don't get hurt fighting imaginary people.:D plus it's keeps my mind active trying to figure sh!t out.
BQ

[Baqualin]

Individual CMA systems will often have unique forms of jibengong that reveal the body method. IF you understand the body method, the usage becomes apparent.

Otherwise your body may never do what was intended. A good example is the Hung Gar Tiger Crane - I've seen a lot of Kenmpo schools out there perform it badly. They really don't get it. The moves seem silly to them.

Then you see a guy who knows the material, and as they say, the clouds part.

So yeah, KC, this is a big deal in understanding material.

Now go read my comics! www.craveworld.com

Cool!!! I will:)
BQ

[mkriii]

Shoot, and I was hoping that Johnny Walker would have driven the final nail in your coffin. There's always next year.

No, I kicked his butt about a month ago. Johnny Walker was no competition for me. I beat him in less than one minute. The toughest person I ever faught was Evan Williams but with my drunken boxing I finally beat him.

[xcakid]

Holy shiskabob. 554 pages!!!:eek: This thread is a forum of its own.

[Mas Judt]

Thanks BQ - a book like this lives on the pre-orders - which is right now.

It's a cool book, I hope you like it enough to order it!

[arinathos.valin]

Blue Travesty,
Tip of the hat to you for some very nice posts. I happen to agree with much of what you've said!

Happy New Year to everyone... hope your training goes well this year!

[kwaichang]

Has anyone read the Editors note by Gene Ching in the June 2006 Kung fu Taichi ???? It has an interesting idea about the "supposed" history of MA styles KC

[Shaolin Wookie]

Did it involve an incredibly hairy, psychic chinese monk? If not, it's complete rubbish.

[kwaichang]

No but it does shed a new light on the concept of the Origin and Lineage etc of styles. I wish I ould find it to put it on here KC:)

[Baqualin]

Hey JP,
PM me your email.....I have something you need to see.:D
BQ

[kungfujunky]

HEY bq any news on a that stuff you were going to put together for me?

no rush my man just checking!

by the way i hope everyone had a good and safe holidays!

[kwaichang]

I have been looking at the thread the only true authentic Shaolin. So I ask who really knows what the real Shaolin is.??? Or what it isnt ??? KC

[Mas Judt]

First you have to define authentic:

1.) Is it what is practiced AT Shaolin? - this would be the most easily proven fact. If it is practiced at Shaolin, it's Shaolin Kung Fu.

2.) Was it derived from Shaolin? Almost every CMA claims to be 'Shaolin'. Some arts like 'Shaolin Long Fist' are in fact Muslim in origin, but get the name from the classification at the guoshu instititute. Many 'Shaolin' arts have nothing to do with Shaolin other than coping the name.

3.) Is it obviously NOT - such as the 'Shaolin Kenpo' styles you see that are heavily JMA influenced.

I don't think Shaolin Do's history is really defensible, but the benefit you have is that this is true of many schools even in China.

[Mas Judt]

I'm hoping to meet a more experienced SD guy, hopefully with direct contact with Sin The', as I have some theories about what SD was before it became 'all things to all people.'

If I'm right, it's much cooler than what it tries to be.

[tattooedmonk]

I'm hoping to meet a more experienced SD guy, hopefully with direct contact with Sin The', as I have some theories about what SD was before it became 'all things to all people.'

If I'm right, it's much cooler than what it tries to be.This should be interesting. Can you discuss it here first so we can throw around ideas??

[doug maverick]

First you have to define authentic:

1.) Is it what is practiced AT Shaolin? - this would be the most easily proven fact. If it is practiced at Shaolin, it's Shaolin Kung Fu.

2.) Was it derived from Shaolin? Almost every CMA claims to be 'Shaolin'. Some arts like 'Shaolin Long Fist' are in fact Muslim in origin, but get the name from the classification at the guoshu instititute. Many 'Shaolin' arts have nothing to do with Shaolin other than coping the name.

3.) Is it obviously NOT - such as the 'Shaolin Kenpo' styles you see that are heavily JMA influenced.

I don't think Shaolin Do's history is really defensible, but the benefit you have is that this is true of many schools even in China.


**** so by your 1 flashy acrobatic "dancing" is real shaolin kung fu. i can't believe this thread is still running

[Mas Judt]

Doug - I'm just going through the language of it and the practical usage of the terms. No judgments.

TTM - I'm not telling until I see something to confirm it for me.

[tattooedmonk]

Doug - I'm just going through the language of it and the practical usage of the terms. No judgments.

TTM - I'm not telling until I see something to confirm it for me.Like what??

[Judge Pen]

I'm hoping to meet a more experienced SD guy, hopefully with direct contact with Sin The', as I have some theories about what SD was before it became 'all things to all people.'

If I'm right, it's much cooler than what it tries to be.

Start with the Elder Masters Leonard, Mullins, Soard etc and go down the list. See if any are willing to talk to you. Visit the school in Lexington as well. There are many there that don't have the rank, but have been around forever.

[Mas Judt]

TTM - Just historical stuff, stuff that points to the 'ancestral source' (had to make it sound cool) of what may be the base art of SD. I've got connections in both China and Indonesia. The Chinese for the most part disavowed SD, but the Indo-chinese, that's another story....

I am far from complete in this, but I've had a hunch for a while based on something I saw.

Once I'm done (if ever) I doubt it will be anything that makes anybody jump up and down with glee - but it does show a connection to a specific school. That's all.

[Judge Pen]

TTM - Just historical stuff, stuff that points to the 'ancestral source' (had to make it sound cool) of what may be the base art of SD. I've got connections in both China and Indonesia. The Chinese for the most part disavowed SD, but the Indo-chinese, that's another story....

I am far from complete in this, but I've had a hunch for a while based on something I saw.

Once I'm done (if ever) I doubt it will be anything that makes anybody jump up and down with glee - but it does show a connection to a specific school. That's all.

Looking forward to hearing these stories.

[kungfujunky]

i know of at least 2 maybe 3 posters on this site that have direct contact with gms pretty regularly

maybe they will pm you.


but if your hunch is even close the number of high level students on here could possibly already know the answers or where to get them

[Mas Judt]

Sorry, was in a meeting. It's open now.

[tattooedmonk]

Sorry, was in a meeting. It's open now.So lets hear it.

[Golden Tiger]

I'm hoping to meet a more experienced SD guy, hopefully with direct contact with Sin The', as I have some theories about what SD was before it became 'all things to all people.'

Okay, I'll bite. I have been around since close to the beginning, seen or am aware of everything ;) that has been taught by Master Sin and have a decent about of contact with him.

Whats the question/connection?

[Shaolin Wookie]

Okay, I'll bite. I have been around since close to the beginning, seen or am aware of everything ;) that has been taught by Master Sin and have a decent about of contact with him.

Whats the question/connection?

Okay, first question: Do you remember the guy that ran the Cobra Kai dojo in Karate Kid?

[kwaichang]

His name was Kreece why ???? what does that have to do with the price of Tea in China ??? KC

[OTD]

Quote:
"Originally Posted by Golden Tiger
Okay, I'll bite. I have been around since close to the beginning, seen or am aware of everything that has been taught by Master Sin and have a decent about of contact with him.
Whats the question/connection? "


I'm probably older than GT, however, been there just as long and too have a decent amount of contact with Grandmaster Sin as well.

Again Joe - " Whats the question/connection? "
OTD

[Golden Tiger]

Okay, first question: Do you remember the guy that ran the Cobra Kai dojo in Karate Kid?

John Kreese aka Martin Kove

additional info on him is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Kove



See, I told you I had all the answers:cool:

[BM2]

Quote:"
I'm probably older than GT
OTD


Dude, you're older than dirt? Ha ha uhmmm....Dang it, MK has gotten into my account again and started posting.:o

[OTD]

Is MK your Twin Brother?
All along I thought MK was your alias?

[Leto]

Here's some excerpts from Don F Draager's book on Indonesian martial arts. Pages 80-84 is the pertinent part, about the kuntao styles of java. Being derived mainly from Shantung and Fukien, as well as tai chi and pa kua...

http://books.google.com/books?id=g3FLFtThkU0C&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=kuntao+pa+kua&source=web&ots=NooU3gJW1F&sig=BHSzEK6Gsy9dkeGPqTbCCa-FhI8

All of this stuff sound familiar?

[Shaolin Wookie]

All of it.
GM The's from West Java, right? Draegger makes the Fukien connection, too.

[brucereiter]

Here's some excerpts from Don F Draager's book on Indonesian martial arts. Pages 80-84 is the pertinent part, about the kuntao styles of java. Being derived mainly from Shantung and Fukien, as well as tai chi and pa kua...

http://books.google.com/books?id=g3FLFtThkU0C&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=kuntao+pa+kua&source=web&ots=NooU3gJW1F&sig=BHSzEK6Gsy9dkeGPqTbCCa-FhI8

All of this stuff sound familiar?

thanks for the link.

[mkriii]

Good Monday morning to all of my great Shaolin Do friends. How are ya'll doing? Have you been praticing your forms and drinking your cool aid like good Sin The' followers should?

Make sure ya'll practice your Ippon Kumite & Tai Pang Sin Kune (whatever that is).

Sincerely,
Mark

[mkriii]

http://www.hinodekarate.ca/kumite.htm#ippon

If you look at this link to a Shotokan website you will notice that Ippon Kumite is listed on it. SD also mention Ippon Kumite. Hmmmm, is SD really pure kung fu? Or is it a mix of different styles? Oh wait, they (SD) just uses Japanese names out of respect for the late greatgrandmaster I Chang Ming, it really is all chinese kung fu.

[Judge Pen]

Seriously, why do you even come on here? Do you like being antagonistic and patronizing? It seems like a well adjusted individual could find better things to do with their time then contributing nothing but negativity on an internet forum.

I mean look at Mas Judt or MK as an example. Both of them are very outspoken about their criticisms of SD but they at least contribute toward a dialogue that all but the most ardent "head in the sand" types appreciate even if they don't always agree with. You, on the other hand, are a waste of bandwidth. I've never put anyone on an ignore list before (not even Fu Pow :p) but you are in the running for a first.

[mkriii]

Judge Pen......Yeah, I kinda like being antagonistic. No but seriously, I didn't originally start out planning to keep on like this, it just got kinda fun to watch as shaolin do people/students started to resond and react. Now its almost joking that I do it. Kind of to amuse myself.
Anyways, have a nice day. :D

[Judge Pen]

Judge Pen......Yeah, I kinda like being antagonistic. No but seriously, I didn't originally start out planning to keep on like this, it just got kinda fun to watch as shaolin do people/students started to resond and react. Now its almost joking that I do it. Kind of to amuse myself.
Anyways, have a nice day. :D

Hey, at least you're upfront about being antagonistic for the hell of it.

[kwaichang]

Having trained in Shoto Kan for many years i will tell you the history of Ippon Kumite it isbased from the Japanese saying "I Ken Hisatsu" spelling?? To Kill with one blow or cut. Though SD calls it Ippon Kumite it is not true Ippon Kumite Funikoshi taught Ippon Kumite as a way to curb injury and teach control. BTW Shoto Kan finds itsw roots in the Okinawa Te and thus was imported from China therefore it too is in a way Chinese Martial Arts. Via Japan. YOU DIP KC

[tattooedmonk]

Having trained in Shoto Kan for many years i will tell you the history of Ippon Kumite it isbased from the Japanese saying "I Ken Hisatsu" spelling?? To Kill with one blow or cut. Though SD calls it Ippon Kumite it is not true Ippon Kumite Funikoshi taught Ippon Kumite as a way to curb injury and teach control. BTW Shoto Kan finds itsw roots in the Okinawa Te and thus was imported from China therefore it too is in a way Chinese Martial Arts. Via Japan. YOU DIP KC I agree. You crack me up ,bro.

[kwaichang]

Why not use "Ippon Kumite" as an art from China uses 2 Man Sets why cant a 2 man set be just one attack and defend technique. Application is the same thing is it not. To condemn an art because it uses "NEW" training methods or methods that will make the practioner better is stupid. All arts would be condemned and all practitioners as well KC

[Lamassu]

Gentlemen, it's apparent that mkriii is a troll, and all he wants is to get a "rise" out of us. So let me be the first in (hopefully) a trend of ignoring this flamer so we can focus on more relevent discussion.

'bye mkriii, your twattle will bother me no longer (and I hate kool aid and I hate people who think they're clever when they say cr@p like "keep drinking the cool aid" honestly, you really are pathetic).

[mkriii]

Not as pathetic as you (your the brainwashed idiot who thinks that SD is the greatest thing since sliced bread). If you only had a clue. Every other kung fu stylist thinks that SD is bogus. Are they all wrong and you guys the right ones? The rest of the world is wrong about SD, right? Whatever. Keep thinking that. One day you'll see the light.

[mkriii]

By the way did you drink your cool aid like good little boys and girls? You SD people believe every thing that GM Sin says don't you? Just like Jim Jones.

[tattooedmonk]

I saw in inside kung fu or black belt magazine yesterday a letter that you wrote looking for an article with your teachers in it . Did you know this?? It says you have to know the year and the issue for them to find it. DUH!!!

[mkriii]

Know I didn't find it. I told them what the article was about. I was just taking a chance that maybe they could look articles up by subject matter.

[mkriii]

I was going to have the article framed and give it to him for a christmas present along with some photos that were taken over the years of tournaments and seminars. I prob won't see him for a while because he is moving to China for almost 3 years. Only get to see him when he comes home to visit.

[BentMonk]

mkriii - Dude, you may have been up front about being deliberately antagonistic, but you need to get material that is original and more entertaining. The whole "kool aid...rest of the kung fu world laughs at SD" shtick has been done to death. I know there's been a writers strike, but you can do better if you try. Your troll fu is weak. :D

[kwaichang]

I have offered on 2 occasions to meet mkriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii in Lex KY but he does not respond come on mkriiiiiiiiii lets have a go and a "friendly" match what say how bout Feb 2008 show me what I do is Crap kool aid KC

[tattooedmonk]

I have offered on 2 occasions to meet mkriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii in Lex KY but he does not respond come on mkriiiiiiiiii lets have a go and a "friendly" match what say how bout Feb 2008 show me what I do is Crap kool aid KC
I would love to see this.

[tattooedmonk]

Have a list of the required forms from 5th to 6th??

[kungfujunky]

pm sent ttm

[tattooedmonk]

Kung Fu Junky

[Flying-Monkey]

I was going to have the article framed and give it to him for a christmas present along with some photos that were taken over the years of tournaments and seminars. I prob won't see him for a while because he is moving to China for almost 3 years. Only get to see him when he comes home to visit.

You should give-up. This is not because you are wrong. It's because they will not listen.

[mkriii]

I have offered on 2 occasions to meet mkriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii in Lex KY but he does not respond come on mkriiiiiiiiii lets have a go and a "friendly" match what say how bout Feb 2008 show me what I do is Crap kool aid KC

Why do you want to do it in Feb.? Why wait? Do you feelyou need to train to get in shape for this "friendly" match? I'm already in shape for this "friendly" match if I wanted to have it.

[kwaichang]

WHEN??????????? You name it BTW I am not in shape. KC

[tattooedmonk]

WHEN??????????? You name it BTW I am not in shape. KC This is getting good. I am popping the popcorn.

[Judge Pen]

I'm already in shape for this "friendly" match if I wanted to have it.

Why the qualifying language?

[The Xia]

Why the qualifying language?
I saw your lawyer colors on that one! :D

[Seppukku]

By the way did you drink your cool aid like good little boys and girls? You SD people believe every thing that GM Sin says don't you? Just like Jim Jones.

http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/artist/Jones,+Jim/a/Jim+Jones.htm

Really, Mrkiii. What is it you have against black people? And why do you think the Byrd people believe everything Jim Jones has to say? I had a homie that went to one of Jim Jones's after-parties, and Jim was passing around a doob. He took a really long drag on the spliff, but champed down on it too hard and left some spit on the end. So the Byrd people were like: "Hey, Jim! You arsehole! You drooled on the doob!" Jim was like: "No I didn't, good fellow! How now? What's this I hear about salivating on the doob?" And then the leader of the Byrd people was like: "Whatever...."

I think this demonstrates how the Byrd people don't believe everything Jim Jones says.

And another thing. I'm sick and tired of white people always saying that black people only drink fruit punch and kool-aid and eat nachos like every meal. It's just an unfair stereotype, and I think it demonstrates how out-of-touch you are with current social-epistemic rhetoric, good fellow.

Diffray your racist agendas elsewhere, mate. We're all stocked up on Redneck-Oedipal-Inbred-Delusion-Syndrome over in the MMA Forum.

(Note: if you didn't notice, that clever epithet actually spells out ROIDS as an acronym, which only goes to demonstrate how much better at writing I am than you'reself.)

You are obviously an African-American thats trying to show that he has a little bit of education but in reality has none. I was just going along with your B.S. conversation to amuse you. Your attack on NJM's comments in earlier posts shows that you are an idiot. There is a saying........ You can take the ******* out of the ghetto but you can't take the ghetto out of the ********.

Ah....in the light of the above (rehashing it again), I begin to see why you say SD practitioners will never see the light. In your world, illumination is hating black people.

Well, maybe SD isn't that good after all. Lousy, no-good non-racist SD scum.

[Mas Judt]

Did MRK actually say something like that?!?

That is just not right...

[Seppukku]

Did MRK actually say something like that?!?

That is just not right...

It was a PM, so you have to trust me or call it BS. Your choice. Judge his character by his posts, and the answer is pretty clear.

I think this demonstrates how serious I can be.

[tattooedmonk]

or 3.

Is the lower level staff/ bo form ,Su Ba kuen, that is taught by the CSCs the same form as what is listed as Chu Chi Kuen Su from the old list (The one in GMS's hand writing, both in Chinese and English)of material taught up to 5th black??

This list also shows forms that were taught @ 3rd and 2nd that are now requirements for 1st. I have an understanding that it was changed to allow for additional material to be added, but ,when do you think this changed?

I also noticed that Pan Loong Pang is not listed in the material @ all .
Do you know when this was added??

I thought it was originally taught at 3rd? Is this correct??

I also noticed that many of the form names for staff/bo (s) are refered to as "Pang", this means monks staff/ stick ,right? Would this not also add to the credibility of SD coming from the temples? Or just part of the big lie that the criminal matermind ,GMS, is propetuating?:rolleyes:;):D:cool:

[Leto]

TTM, I'm not an old timer, but I have a copy of that document you're talking about. Since Se Pa Kuen is listed in the brown belt material on there, I assumed chu ji kuen, at blue belt, is what they call Se mien ba fang pang in the CSC.
Someone who speaks Chinese told me that the word "bang/pang" does not immediately evoke an image of a long staff to them, but that it usually refers to a club-like stick, like a baseball bat (or our short stick). I'm not sure if they used that word incorrectly in the CSC, or if it's got more or older translations.
In other styles, there is a pang long gun, we decided to call it pang long bang for some reason. The normal/expected usage of "bang" is in our Bei Fang Qi Gai Bang. Unlike what my instructor thought and told us, "gai bang" does not mean "short stick". "Bei Fang" means northern, "Qi Gai" means beggar, and "bang" is the stick/club.
So our forms are confusingly named, because two of them use the word "bang" to mean a double-ended staff, and one of them uses it to mean a short stick.
I would guess that they renamed the forms to try to make a distinction between the double-ended staff and the single-ended staff, which are both correctly called "gun/kuen", but forgot about the short stick form. I think they should have just left it as GM The called it on that document, Chu Ji Gun. It's not that hard to explain that there are different kinds of staff.

[Mas Judt]

I'd like to hear his response on this. But I find racist comments of ANY kind very distasteful. Our culture here in the states is replete with 'identity politics', which is a vestige of fascism, and should be shunned by all educated folks.

However, since fascism and it's progeny are products of the 'progressive movement' - many educators seem to be active proponents of it.

Sad.

[MasterKiller]

I'd like to hear his response on this. But I find racist comments of ANY kind very distasteful. Our culture here in the states is replete with 'identity politics', which is a vestige of fascism, and should be shunned by all educated folks.

However, since fascism and it's progeny are products of the 'progressive movement' - many educators seem to be active proponents of it.

Sad.

Fascism is a far-right position. How is that part of the left-wing liberal progressive movement? :rolleyes:

[Judge Pen]

Fascism is a far-right position. How is that part of the left-wing liberal progressive movement? :rolleyes:

Full circle?

[Mas Judt]

Since when is fascism a far-right position?

All of the fascists identified themselves as leftists and followed leftist policies - with the exception of being nationalists versus internationalists.

The *myth* that fascism is far right was put forth by the Marxists who declared anyone who was not a bolshevik internationalist to be on the right.

But it was the left that gave birth to fascism, it was leftist issues that fueled it and fascists themselves were in fact leftists.

Our own dance with fascism in this country under Woodrow Wilson also shows the political left actively involved in supporting and complimenting fascism. Go dig up old issues of American leftist magazines. See what they have to say about fascist Italy.

Fascist philosophy is a direct product of the left.

[MasterKiller]

Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number.... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.

Mussolini, or course, would disagree.

[Judge Pen]

Since when is fascism a far-right position?

All of the fascists identified themselves as leftists and followed leftist policies - with the exception of being nationalists versus internationalists.

The *myth* that fascism is far right was put forth by the Marxists who declared anyone who was not a bolshevik internationalist to be on the right.

But it was the left that gave birth to fascism, it was leftist issues that fueled it and fascists themselves were in fact leftists.

Our own dance with fascism in this country under Woodrow Wilson also shows the political left actively involved in supporting and complimenting fascism. Go dig up old issues of American leftist magazines. See what they have to say about fascist Italy.

Fascist philosophy is a direct product of the left.


I suppose it depends on how you identify 'right' and 'left'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics

Fascism is, conceptually, an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party. Under traditional "left v. right" ideologies, this is on the right side of the continuum.

Socialism is, conceptually, a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. Under traditional "left v. right" ideologies, this is on the left side of the continuum.

In practice, they are both driven by mass movements that culminate in an authoritarian government. As such, although the terminology is different, the end results are not very far apart.

Full circle.

[Mas Judt]

MK - Mussolini was refering to classical liberalism - what we would today call 'libertarianism' versus today's 'new liberal' or 'progressive moments.'

The statist philosophy shares a great deal with the 'progressive movement.' Mussolini never turned his back on socialism or claimed to be anything but a socialist.

Mussolini saw himself as a socialist. His inspirations came from the same philosophical pool, with the same concept of the 'state' and the will of the 'people' trumping individual rights.

This is the position philosophically and in practice of the left. Look at Woodrow Wilson's war time socialism drive.

Socialism of all types (fascism/communism/socialism)is derived from the same sources, Neitzsche, Mark, Hedeigger, etc.

Classical liberalism or todays conservatism (not neoconservatism, which is philosophically closer to the left) comes from folks like Adams.

Marxists are very good at calling anyone who disagrees a 'fascist' (which is funny when Al Sharpton calls a tax CUT fascist. What an idiot). When in fact, fascism fundamentally is a left wing philosophy.

[mkriii]

Seppuku....I do not dislike or even hate African Americans. You have bad white people and you have bad black people. Heck, you have bad people in all races and color. Its people like you (because I saw it in one of your posts) that make me upset. When you accused someone of being racist because he asked someone who "supposedly" had a m.a. school in oakland how many students were African American. He's racist because he asked that? Give me a break! Get over it buddy. And no I'm not racist or prejudiced towards any race of people. For your info I have a lot of African American friends. Now, are you going to say I'm racist because I have black friends and thats my way of showing I'm not racist but I really am? I predict thats what you'll say next. Get a life Seppuku. Also I'm not prejudiced against religions, sexual orientation, etc..... I'm very open minded (well maybe a little prejudiced against Democrats.......lol. Just joking).

[tattooedmonk]

TTM, I'm not an old timer, but I have a copy of that document you're talking about. Since Se Pa Kuen is listed in the brown belt material on there, I assumed chu ji kuen, at blue belt, is what they call Se mien ba fang pang in the CSC.
Someone who speaks Chinese told me that the word "bang/pang" does not immediately evoke an image of a long staff to them, but that it usually refers to a club-like stick, like a baseball bat (or our short stick). I'm not sure if they used that word incorrectly in the CSC, or if it's got more or older translations.
In other styles, there is a pang long gun, we decided to call it pang long bang for some reason. The normal/expected usage of "bang" is in our Bei Fang Qi Gai Bang. Unlike what my instructor thought and told us, "gai bang" does not mean "short stick". "Bei Fang" means northern, "Qi Gai" means beggar, and "bang" is the stick/club.
So our forms are confusingly named, because two of them use the word "bang" to mean a double-ended staff, and one of them uses it to mean a short stick.
I would guess that they renamed the forms to try to make a distinction between the double-ended staff and the single-ended staff, which are both correctly called "gun/kuen", but forgot about the short stick form. I think they should have just left it as GM The called it on that document, Chu Ji Gun. It's not that hard to explain that there are different kinds of staff.Cool Man , Thanks.

[tattooedmonk]

or 3.

Is the lower level staff/ bo form ,Su Ba kuen, that is taught by the CSCs the same form as what is listed as Chu Chi Kuen Su from the old list (The one in GMS's hand writing, both in Chinese and English)of material taught up to 5th black??

This list also shows forms that were taught @ 3rd and 2nd that are now requirements for 1st. I have an understanding that it was changed to allow for additional material to be added, but ,when do you think this changed?

I also noticed that Pan Loong Pang is not listed in the material @ all .
Do you know when this was added??

I thought it was originally taught at 3rd? Is this correct??

I also noticed that many of the form names for staff/bo (s) are refered to as "Pang", this means monks staff/ stick ,right? Would this not also add to the credibility of SD coming from the temples? Or just part of the big lie that the criminal matermind ,GMS, is propetuating?:rolleyes:;):D:cool:
anyone else able to answer these other questions??

[TrollTerminator]

Seppuku....I do not dislike or even hate African Americans. You have bad white people and you have bad black people. Heck, you have bad people in all races and color. Its people like you (because I saw it in one of your posts) that make me upset. When you accused someone of being racist because he asked someone who "supposedly" had a m.a. school in oakland how many students were African American. He's racist because he asked that? Give me a break! Get over it buddy. And no I'm not racist or prejudiced towards any race of people. For your info I have a lot of African American friends. Now, are you going to say I'm racist because I have black friends and thats my way of showing I'm not racist but I really am? I predict thats what you'll say next. Get a life Seppuku. Also I'm not prejudiced against religions, sexual orientation, etc..... I'm very open minded (well maybe a little prejudiced against Democrats.......lol. Just joking).

Originally Posted by mkriii
You are obviously an African-American thats trying to show that he has a little bit of education but in reality has none. I was just going along with your B.S. conversation to amuse you. Your attack on NJM's comments in earlier posts shows that you are an idiot. There is a saying........ You can take the ******* out of the ghetto but you can't take the ghetto out of the ********.

How else would you take this statement:confused:
TT

[kungfujunky]

i took them as racist and ignorant....of course i already knew mkriiii was ignorant so that wasnt a surprise.

im surprised he is allowed to stay on this forum with his personal attacks and now racial slurs.

he is a troll who adds nothing of import to any thread i have seen him post in.


then there is the link he posted for a made up shaolin ninjitsu site that had a ton of inappropriate material in it.

mkriii.....you are a coward plain and simple. and if that offends you then great. maybe that will get you out of your closet and actually cross hands with someone.

as of right now i have zero regard for you or for what you say. you present yourself poorly and show little respect for others. a martial artist with YOUR :rolleyes: amount of training and skill should know better.

[humbleman]

...the realm of the truly stupid and obscenely ignorant. Isn't there a monitor who's supposed to keep idiots like this off of here? :mad:pping probably wouldn't cure you. Life would have to do that. Maybe you were raised by