[QUOTE=TaichiMantis;1188568].
…as opposed to “fake” authentic Shaolin Kung fu! :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
There is such a thing… The monks teach it now.
It’s basically comprised of some authentic forms taught by authentic monks (in some cases), but they have no knowledge of fighting principles contained in the forms. The fighting side taught is just Sanda.
So it is indeed authentic, but it’s still fake.
[QUOTE=LFJ;1188629]There is such a thing… The monks teach it now.
It’s basically comprised of some authentic forms taught by authentic monks (in some cases), but they have no knowledge of fighting principles contained in the forms. The fighting side taught is just Sanda.
So it is indeed authentic, but it’s still fake.[/QUOTE]
Sort of agree, but it’s hard to imagine what “Shaolin” authenticity would be without government rule and of course the politics. Some monks are “fake” because of interesting inner workings of Shaolin. It’s a very intricate system that usually ends up in becoming a finger pointing contest anyway.
[QUOTE=LFJ;1188629] they have no knowledge of fighting principles contained in the forms. [/QUOTE]
I have met some Shaolin monks. From what they told me, their forms do have application. But those application are standerlized that no monk teacher is allow to change it.
It’s not that difficult to come up just one application. Whether those monks know different applications, or be able to apply thos application in combat will be a different story.
Notice I said fighting principles, not applications. Their applications have to be standardized because they don’t actually understand the inherent concepts and principles of the forms or the system even. They think the hundreds of forms contain hundreds of hypothetical responses to a straight punch for instance. That kind of thinking is useless, as you will never be able to decide on a particular response for a particular situation in a fraction of a second and apply it successfully. Fighting doesn’t work like that.
That’s why they show hypothetical “applications” for each move as they teach the forms, but when they teach sparring they put on big gloves and just do Sanda.
Xiaohongquan, for example, contains within it concepts and principles of the “flood boxing” subsystem of Shaolin, which in itself teaches proper facing structure, range in combat, the “flood” strategy, principles for dealing with different kinds of force, and so on unique to the concept of “flood boxing”.
The monks of today know nothing of this type of thing. They know individual “applications” for each move and then Sanda.
So it’s authentic in that the forms are indeed authentic, and the monks may be monks, but it’s still fake…
[QUOTE=LFJ;1188834]Notice I said fighting principles, not applications. Their applications have to be standardized because they don’t actually understand the inherent concepts and principles of the forms or the system even. They think the hundreds of forms contain hundreds of hypothetical responses to a straight punch for instance. That kind of thinking is useless, as you will never be able to decide on a particular response for a particular situation in a fraction of a second and apply it successfully. Fighting doesn’t work like that.
That’s why they show hypothetical “applications” for each move as they teach the forms, but when they teach sparring they put on big gloves and just do Sanda.
Xiaohongquan, for example, contains within it concepts and principles of the “flood boxing” subsystem of Shaolin, which in itself teaches proper facing structure, range in combat, the “flood” strategy, principles for dealing with different kinds of force, and so on unique to the concept of “flood boxing”.
The monks of today know nothing of this type of thing. They know individual “applications” for each move and then Sanda.
So it’s authentic in that the forms are indeed authentic, and the monks may be monks, but it’s still fake…[/QUOTE]
Sounds like a realistic and clear-headed view of the situation. It would be really interesting if you have the time/desire to elaborate on any of this. I realize it might not easily lend itself to the written word, of course.
[QUOTE=rett;1188836]It would be really interesting if you have the time/desire to elaborate on any of this. I realize it might not easily lend itself to the written word, of course.[/QUOTE]
Yes. It’s far easier to explain clearly live. I once discussed it with someone for days over Facebook and it didn’t go well. Then when they came to China just a couple minutes was enough to clear it all up. It’s probably too far off topic here though. I’ll maybe do a separate thread on it when I have time to organize some thoughts.
Our latest free web article offering
On taking martial vows. READ Big Brother’s Disciples by Gene Ching
THREADS
Fall 2019
Discipleship
Shaolin Temple Discipleship
Shi Decheng
Heir to late Grandmaster Wing Kwong Lam?