[QUOTE=lkfmdc;954548]My best friend, the best man at my wedding, and Chan Tai San’s disciple, was THERE at Shaolin in 1985… it was in ruins and there were only 6 monks there, ALL OLD.
This was before the commercial venture we now know as “Shaolin” started…
Those are the facts, and if you don’t know them, you are the one who needs to do “homework”[/QUOTE]
Yes, I knew them all…I trained under them…I was a closed door, basement (and attic) student! I was granted a Masterhood by each of them. Each taught me a separate skill set and that is why I am now invincible!!!
Of course I can tell you their names if I wanted too, but I don’t want too! They would disapprove and they trusted me to keep their identities hidden!
Also, if you REALLY know who they are, you don’t need their names, and if you don’t know who they are, their names will have no meaning to you!
and THAT is my proof that I am what I say I am!
And if you or anyone else doesn’t like it, YOU CAN SUCK MY TOES!!!
Respect? I always deliver respect or at least courtesy. It costs me nothing - it’s free.
They don’t promote the “secret” stuff so much. That’s repeated by students from an earlier era.
What seems truly unlikely is that there would be an American child “studying” ancient Chinese culture of any nature in the 1960s, with Chairman Mao and the Red Guard running amok.
To be a Shaolin or Taoist priest, he would have to have been ordained by someone. He doesn’t seem to want to say and clearly not open to questions.
What I cannot rationalize is the lineage. They claim that its ancient without alteration for 2,000 years. If he can’t say who trained him, and in what, I doubt everything. He practices something and is expert in it. The question is - what is it?
A very good obvious point earlier on this thread - if it’s ‘authentic’ Northern-style Shaolin kung fu, it would be consistent with other schools and systems, not something different.
a style of MA that hasnt evolved ANY in 2000 years? :eek:
RUN, RUN VERY FAR AWAY!
im sorry but evolution of material is at the core of shaolin wushu. shaolin was a melting pot for martial arts in china. think ancient MMA
most likely the guy didnt finish his training and made up a line of BS lineage to compensate for the fact that he has none, and it is apparently important for him to have some sort of fantastic lineage.
i mean, he may be a great martial artists, only one way to know, but personally i dont give credit to anyone who bases a foundation for students in obvious lies.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;954707]if they wanna learn modern wushu how does that hurt them?[/QUOTE]
It does so because Shaolin is claiming to teach traditional Kung Fu, but is really teaching contemporary wushu. In other words, they are bringing dishonesty to their teaching.
[QUOTE=cerebus;954726]It does so because Shaolin is claiming to teach traditional Kung Fu, but is really teaching contemporary wushu. In other words, they are bringing dishonesty to their teaching.[/QUOTE]
there is a “monk” teaching Chen Style and calling it “shaolin taiji” :rolleyes:
his former friend, a disciple of chen xiaowang, doesn’t find it the least amusing
well, after seeing,“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” I predicted there would be Wudan schools popping up all over, and lo and behold-there are Wudan Monks suddenly teaching at Wudan-teaching contemporary forms. Chang Zhengfeng Tai-Chi..Wudan Bagua…
One guy, who came over from China, taught Tai-Chi at Stony Brook University, a few years later, he has the top knot, long robe and the lunchbag on his head (you know, that hat they wear) , claiming to be a Wudan Monk.
If they made a movie of The Wandering Taoist (Chronicles of Tao)you can bet there will be guys claiming Hua Shan as their style.
[QUOTE=TenTigers;954737]well, after seeing,“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” I predicted there would be Wudan schools popping up all over, and lo and behold-there are Wudan Monks suddenly teaching at Wudan-teaching contemporary forms. Chang Zhengfeng Tai-Chi..Wudan Bagua…
One guy, who came over from China, taught Tai-Chi at Stony Brook University, a few years later, he has the top knot, long robe and the lunchbag on his head (you know, that hat they wear) , claiming to be a Wudan Monk.
If they made a movie of The Wandering Taoist (Chronicles of Tao)you can bet there will be guys claiming Hua Shan as their style.[/QUOTE]
Hua Shan is some **** good exercise! WhyTF can’t I type D A M N ?
I’ve trained at Wudang, and TBF the schools there largely predate (in origin if not current form) CTHD, it’s just their exposure to western eyes is greater now. Remember, kung fu tourism to Wudang existed in Sun Lu Tang’s time
The forms taught at the bulk of the schools are actually really good forms, and if they’re modern, then they’re what sport wushu could and should have been, rather than what it is. Some forms have certainly been restructured, but we’re talking Wong Fei Hung restructuring, not Wu Bin. The forms all display strong traditional Kung Fu principles, and are really quite interesting, and have their own distinct flavour.
Also worth bearing in mind that most schools in Wudang only really cater to Chinese students, and CTHD wasn’t very popular in China (and indeed Wudang actually isn’t that well known in China).
The counterpoint to this is the official demonstration teams who give displays to tourists, who DO do wushu-ised stuff, and the awful ****genised Taiyiwuxingquan they’ve started teaching to kids.
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;954548]My best friend, the best man at my wedding, and Chan Tai San’s disciple, was THERE at Shaolin in 1985… it was in ruins and there were only 6 monks there, ALL OLD.
This was before the commercial venture we now know as “Shaolin” started…
Those are the facts, and if you don’t know them, you are the one who needs to do “homework”[/QUOTE]
Yes I know. However, a lot of the old fighting styles were pieced back together from the old masters and families that knew and practiced the old sets and some of the older manuals that were not destroyed. This is also what Shi De Shan describes when he arrived at Shaolin during that time frame.
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;954733]there is a “monk” teaching Chen Style and calling it “shaolin taiji” :rolleyes:
his former friend, a disciple of chen xiaowang, doesn’t find it the least amusing[/QUOTE]
Shaolin claims that Tai Chi was a product of Shaolin because Chang San Feng was a Shaolin Monk prior to founding Tai Chi at Wudang. So it goes that what he created was based on Shaolin martial arts. Shaolin Tai Chi is very similar to Chen Tai Chi but there are differences.
[QUOTE=sha0lin1;954808]They teach modern wushu to outsiders if you want to learn it. If you want to learn only traditional you will learn that.[/QUOTE]
I know that at Shi De Yan’s school you have to do sport wushu for 3+ years before they’ll teach you any Shaolin. Considering that Shaolin basics and sport wushu basics are pretty different, kinda pointless and seems a bit of a scam.
[QUOTE=cerebus;954726]It does so because Shaolin is claiming to teach traditional Kung Fu, but is really teaching contemporary wushu. In other words, they are bringing dishonesty to their teaching.[/QUOTE]
A lot of people on here hold that belief and it is a belief that is based on heresay. "A friend who went told me this, " “I read that.” If you go to Shaolin and train, not just visit, you will find just the opposite. Yes they train Contemporary but traditional is still very much alive. When I was there that was practically all I saw, traditional training.
I can’t believe that after 1500 years of existance, “real Shaolin kung fu” can only be found here in the U.S. Maybe people need to take their blinders off and open up to the fact that “real Shaolin” from Shaolin Temple is here in the U.S. now and stop protecting their fantasies that their arts and schools hold the real Shaolin Techniques. Now I love the Kung Fu T.V. series as much as the next guy but that T.V. show, the cultural revolution, and China’s isolation on the international level for so many years made it very easy for people to claim they are teaching Shaolin Temple Kung Fu.
