Is that so. There’s a saying that 1 shaolin monk is worth 1000 soldiers and the emperor asked the shaolin monks help guard th coast line.
Sayings have little to do with actuality. Who propogates this saying? And ultimately, what is the end result?
What happened to the Shaolin temple on more than one occasion?
Do you think this is true today? Do you honestly think one shaolin monk could defeat 1000 soldiers? From any countries army?
Reality would indicate that this saying has no “real” merit in this day and age and had not so much merit in past history. It’s a moot point and not really worth arguing about. But rebut if you must. 
There’s a saying that 1 shaolin monk is worth 1000 soldiers and the emperor asked the shaolin monks help guard th coast line.
Reality would indicate that this saying has no “real” merit in this day and age and had not so much merit in past history. It’s a moot point and not really worth arguing about. But rebut if you must.
In perspective and in context something comparable would be like saying that 10 special forces personnel is equivalent to 100 regular Army grunts which doesn’t seem so hard to believe which does give merit to the previous statement the earlier number used to make a point but still valid IMO.
LOL. you should listen to what canglong says. Special forces today may have 5 to 6 yrs training. Shaolin monks train from an early age for 20 to 40 years. the average chinese soldier trains for 3 to 6 months. go figure - qantity vs quality IMO
um, you guys probably shouldn’t compare an sas with a carbine automatic rifle with a 16th century buddhist monk.
There is an error in thinking there imo. Even to presume that seals or sas or other tactical specialists have such an extreme upper hand on an average soldier is misinformation somewhere.
You have to seperate legend from fact.
Are seals well trained? Yes. To do what? To plant explosives on the hulls of ships and to work this way underwater. 80% of the training is doing in the water doing exactly this. This is called specialization.
Rangers, Green Berets and other types of behind the line commandos are also specialists and their training isn’t exactly what I would call exclusively h2h tactical combatives although there is some of this. Marines and forward companies get more of that type of training and possibly the more shadowy national assassin types, but let’s not get into the rwlms of the Tom Clancy books too far when we talk about modern tactical forces versus Shaolin monks.
Anyway, imo, i refuse to live in that type of fantastical thinking. It’s nice as a story to read in a wuxia novel but in all seriousness anomolies are a blip in time and history that should not be considered the aggrigate of the timeline.
Were Shaolin monks martially adept? According to a few stories they were. the methods that have been handed down by them certainly do augment ones personal strength and ability through the practice of their martial arts.
But that’s something that could be said of a lot of methods. In a lot of sports and a lot of martial arts.
Truth is, if you want to find out how effective your art is in combat, well then you’ll have to go and sign up for a fight or train with that aspect built in and see how you do. Until you’ve used it in a situation that is not within the rigid confines of your school, I am not so certain that anyone will understand the dynamics of the arts they do. It is the unknown, even in a safe environement where the measure is made. Not inside the structure it was built in.
um, you guys probably shouldn’t compare an sas with a carbine automatic rifle with a 16th century buddhist monk.
David,
Doesn’t seem to me that we did that. More to the point that even you yourself acknowledge is time in study and as Vasquez points out the normal training period for most regular military personnel is 3-6 months where as Shaolin Warriors were trained and specialized in specific weaponry starting at an early age going well into adulthood. That was true then as it is now.
Truth is, if you want to find out how effective your art is in combat, well then you’ll have to go and sign up for a fight or train with that aspect built in and see how you do. Until you’ve used it in a situation that is not within the rigid confines of your school, I am not so certain that anyone will understand the dynamics of the arts they do. It is the unknown, even in a safe environement where the measure is made. Not inside the structure it was built in.
That would be one perspective another is understanding that Shaolin fighting is grounded in principle and not technique. With Shaolin when we see the principle we understand it to be Shaolin if we see the technique displayed with the exhuberance of youth but without proper understanding of the principles that regulate time space and energy behind the technique we know it is not Shaolin. If we understand the principle of things we need not see the forrest burn down to understand that the possibilities of such actions could be achieved with one match.
Principle drives technique. Applying technique without the principle renders the technique pretty much useless.
My point in playing devils advocate on the shaolin monk equation is that it is just a legend and certainly doesn’t hold true today.
One doesn’t have skill because they are a student of a given style. One doesn’t have skill that is higher because they choose to learn one style over another.
One either has skill or doesn’t. The method doesn’t preclude the students or the practitioners knowledge, skill or ability.
My other point is that Shaolin monks are buddhist monks first. the martial connection came later (way later) and many of the dhayana practices done by early monks had little if anything to do with martial ability.
Also, we cannot count on the validity of legends and stories to bolster our own place in the shape of things.
You’re missing the point, spirituality and martial arts are linked -that’s why shaolins have such great power. Now MMAers tend to train body without spirit.
???
vasquez, is it your purpose to simply argue with me to make some stance that shaolin is ultimate and everything else is inferior? Because I don’t believe that anymore than I believe I can fly without the aid of an aeroplane.
Be careful not to make sweeping generalizations. Your above statement is wholly incorrect. Do you train in any mma? Do you know anyone who does? An art form whethere sportive or not doesn’t mean that someone is lacking spiritually.
What do you think of charlatans that leap around in saffron robes but are not ordained buddhist monks? Is that spiritual do you suppose?